Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 June	25 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 redirect to Hillsong Music Australia. 28bytes (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit and Truth[edit]

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

De-PRODed article with no additional sources provided. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to the Hillsong article. Despite the fact that it is the first release by a musical collective that had a PROFOUND impact on CCM, I can't find any sources discussing it.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I now did a search through the most relevant sources at WP:CCM/S, and still cannot find anything. Even Cross Rhythms, which has reviews of most of the other Hillsong albums that aren't discussed anywhere else, do not have any articles on this album. I sympathize with Jair Crawford, but I simply cannot find anything to support this album.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Album with no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please forgive me if my syntax is rough. I am very new to this. The album Spirit And Truth was the very first album ever released by Hillsong, and it was only released on cassette and if I remember correctly it was simply sold locally by the church at that time, which was much smaller than it is today. There probably will not be any online sources to find on the album for this reason, however there could be offline sources on the album. Maybe we could try to cover that ground as best we can before going forward with a delete? This is, after all, their very first release. Jair Crawford (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to the Hillside article. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, I've amended my vote accordingly.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we are going to Redirect to the artist page, then we should at least port over some of the information into the artist page as well. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show Your Glory[edit]

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

De-PRODed article with no additional sources provided. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Album with no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Was reviewed by Cross Rhythms and briefly mentioned in Charisma, which indicates that there might be more sources out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm going to keep my vote a weak keep because of the Cross Rhythms coverage. Since it's only one source, my vote is a weak keep, and not a full keep. Correct me if I'm doing the vote wrong. I'm very new at this. Jair Crawford (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to amend your !vote since there is no keep vote :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Kamani[edit]

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

limited noteworthiness, Chamanlal Kamani associated chat Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed vote due to expansion of article. ~~Weak keep~~ there are obviously more sources than are currently cited in the Wikipedia article. He was not just involved in the Anglo Leasing scandal, Deepak Kamani was the principal agent of the Anglo Leasing and Finance Company, a company that had no physical place of business, no directors and no shareholders according to a government report. If that were all, then he'd be a 1EVENT BLP. But arguably his lawsuit against The Star is a separate, if related, matter. The "society page" in external links suggests broader notability. Apparently (subject to additional library research) as Chairman of the Zuri Group he is a "hotel tycoon". --Bejnar (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now a few more sources in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now reliable sources for two other "improprieties", aside from Anglo Leasing, a 4-wheel-drive bulk sale in 1994 and a "boilers" bulk sale. --Bejnar (talk) 17:38, 23 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 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to come back and reconsider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mosfetfaser#Deepak_Kamani - There have been edits additions from Bejnar - it still looks like an attack story, it looks more like an attack story after the Bejnar changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Kamani - so after the alterations I can not change my position to require removal from publication - strong delete Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be balanced, but all of the independent, reliable sources were negative, except the "society" pages. Nonetheless, I included positive information from non-independent sources where they met the criteria at WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. I thought that the original claim was that he did not meet the WP:GNG standard or was WP:BLP1E, so I tried to be inclusive of events reported in independent, reliable sources. I think that the sources demonstrate that he is notable, contrary to the limited noteworthiness indictment by the nom. Please let me know what can be done to make it not an attack page, while staying within the policy requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and demonstrating notability --Bejnar (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the story when I suggested deletion was bad and your edits made it more attacking - what can you do to not make it an attack page - move to delete Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if a living person is a scoundrel, the proper methodology is to wait until they are dead and then emplace a Wikipedia article? Or does this apply to dead people as well, that scoundrels do not deserve entries in the Wikipedia? Or am I wrong and does Deepak Kamani fail WP:GNG now that you have removed most of the reliable independent sources? An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was sourced, see this version. It is not an attack page because it was sourced to independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sole thing referenced to reliable sources is that he was apparently questioned but not charged in a financial scandal. The rest is PR fluff that is not independent of the subject. Especially since he wasn't charged, I think that WP:ONEEVENT applies and the article should be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Could be closed as "no consensus", but the strength of argument clearly builds on the keep side. I also note that none of the early deletion supporters (other than the nom) rebuts any of the later keep arguments.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stateless nation[edit]

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

This article is a soapbox. It's also covered by numerous other articles. This template links to a few articles covering this: Template:Separatist movements per continent Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a useful list. There must the thousands of "ethnicities" within India — but no-one is proposing that each of them should become a nation. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The content is already is covered neutrally elsewhere. I notice Hawaii's inclusion. It indicates there are 1 million Hawaiians. It doesn't show though if all or a majority of those 1 million support the highly fragmented Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I also have to note the use of language. Stateless nation. I've not checked the source listed as [1] but it seems abit cherry picked noting the following language used in the picture, "The U.S. President and Nobel Prize winner Woodrow Wilson published the self-determination law in 1918." I'm sure without reviewing the source but I think it is refering to the Fourteen Points. I question the language here. Using POTUS in such an authorative power over the world. Pushing a POV about the complicated issue of self determination. Over all this is a bit of a soapbox.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate !vote struck by nominator. Please do not format additional comments as if they are by separate discussion participants. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was unaware that listing for nomination counted as a vote. Both the nomination were signed, so I'm not exactly sure how any one would assume they are froma seperate discussion participant. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a useful list, and a soapbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am unclear why the problems noted above cannot be corrected through normal editing of the article. This seems to be a valid concept, and if problems are that people are including or not including things within some section of the article, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater... --Jayron32 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you removed the pictures, the Wilson quote, the list, and just about all of the current text and add sources you could probably fix it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why delete it, praytell? Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. --Jayron32 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because there would be virtually nothing left.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further I'm not exactly sure this topic has enough notability to stand on its own. Pretty much everything not contained in lists already made of seperatist movements. Other stuff doesn't even belong in the article. What remains is about Irredentism.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment Looking at self determination, perhaps the caption is referring to Atlantic Charter rather than the Fourteen Points. But if so, then "published" is not the right word, as there was no formal document for the Atlantic Charter. "Imagine there's no countries / it isn't hard to do" -John Lennon. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That couldn't be. The caption Lists Wilson as President and it also provides a year of 1918. Some of the points in the Fourteen points relate directly to self determination. Just for example. Point 13. The reconstitution of Poland. Which Poland Ceased in about 1790 something.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it may have been his speech on 11 February, 1918.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable, being covered by entire works such as:

Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations
Stateless Nations: Western European Regional Nationalisms and the Old Nations
Understanding Scotland: the sociology of a stateless nation
Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a Post-sovereignty Era
Arabism and Islam : stateless nations and nationless states
Stateless nation‐building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in the changing state system
From the National State to the Stateless Nation 1821-1910
Strategies for the stateless nation: sustainable policies for the regions in Europe
Stateless nations and the emerging international order

It seems especially absurd to be nominating this for deletion when the Kurds seem on the verge of establishing a state and Scotland threatens to re-establish its independence. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and there's already an article on it called Irredentism.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From the definitions at the start of the two articles, they do not appear to be describing the same concept. One (irredentism) describes the desires of one sovereign state to annex territory from another sovereign state. The other (stateless nation) describes a group of people who otherwise meet the definition of a nation, but lack a sovereign state of their own. I don't see where one concept is identical to the other. --Jayron32 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually took the articles suggested relation at face without much thought. However further search leads me to the article on Separatism. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. Separatism implies that there's a group of people that desires separate political sovereignty for themselves. This may or may not be related to the concept of a stateless nation. Some stateless nations seek such separate sovereign states, some do not, some have differing opinions on the matter among themselves, some separatist movements are not based on ethnic or national lines, the two concepts deserve separate articles because they describe separate concepts. --Jayron32 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No sorry. It can imply a desire for seperate political Sovereignty. It can also imply a desire for autonomy as well. It can also imply choice segregation. All stateless nations are sepratists. Not may or may not be. It is ethnic and in some cases racial seperatism.Serialjoepsycho (talk)
Keep - many scholarly and popular books have been written about the concept. The article is not so poor as to require starting from scratch. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic itself passes WP:N, per the sources provided by User:Andrew Davidson. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable concept regardless of what should or shouldn't be listed as examples, and distinct enough from the other concepts the nominator has serially offered as the same without clear or persuasive explanation (to quote the nominator: "I actually took the articles suggested relation at face without much thought.") postdlf (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article did suggest the relation. And upon reflection of the comments above by Jayron, I did not consider that postion and did take the articles suggestions at a face value. However in my opening I did link it to Separatism and further discussed that connection later. In short it is Separatism. Like Staeless Nations, Separatist movements can call for secession or autonomy. All Stateless Nations are considered Separatist Movements.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by whom? Jayron's explanation above on this issue has more weight in my view than your opinion here. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only communicable difference is the narrower definition of a stateless nation. Specifically that the separatists be a nation without a state. I haven't went thru the entire list but a noticeable characteristic of a number of stateless nations is their classification as seperatist movements. As far as who, Svante Cornell. His Dissertation is about stateless nations or discusses them in this context. And honestly I could go and find more. But I fail to actually see the controversy in statless nations as separatist movements. Bring a separatist movement I see no notability for it's own free standing article. That doesn't mean it's not notable. I expected a conversation here could determine that. However that isn't much point in continuing forward in this atmosphere so I withdraw my nomination.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concept. There are obvious issues with sourcing though, and it is questionable if that list of nations should be included.--Staberinde (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wilson (Ontario politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. While there is referencing here, it all supports regular, everyday minutiae of a city council career and fails to make a particularly compelling case that he is in any significant way more notable, or more worthy of permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia, than most other city councillors. The fact that he unsuccessfully ran as a candidate in a federal election does not boost his notability, either, as candidates do not qualify for articles just for being candidates. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a local politician who fails our guidelines for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this local ordinary politician, based on past outcomes and in accord with the nomination. Wikipedia is not designed to be a list of every local councillor. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a well done piece, it's a well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for WP:BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Which is exactly the key reason why the consensus was established that city councillors do not pass our inclusion rules just for being city councillors except in a few very specific circumstances — we don't have the resources or the manpower to adequately maintain thousands upon thousands of biographies of city councillors for policy compliance. We need a politician's claim of notability to be credibly at least at the level of the province or state, precisely so that there is a broad enough audience for it to keep Wikipedia's content standards in force. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local politician, we're not Ontariopedia. Cavarrone 12:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This was challenging to review, because all the sources are offline. I've checked a few at random, to ensure they are legit. Since they were, I'll trust the rest are. I think 39 stories is pretty substantial coverage. Of course, most weren't in-depth about him personally. But, if you add up what they all say, you have a very substantial article. This article contains far more *verified* facts than most MLA/MPP or MP articles. I understand being an alderman or federal candidate does not grant notability, but it also should not revoke notability given by GNG. I think throwing out such a heavily researched article would be a huge mistake. If only every Wikipedian took the time to research a subject to this degree. I think we've forgotten why we noramlly give articles to elected MPs and not alderman. It's because we assume the MP is more likely to have substantial coverage than the alderman. Yet, in this case, it's proven the alderman did get the coverage needed. The nom dismisses the coverage as "minutiae", but that sets up an impossible standard. You've predetermined that local politics is not signficant, and therefore dismiss any coverage of it, and than you find there's a lack of significant coverage. We measure signficance by the level of coverage, and there's signficant coverage. We should not impose our own opinions on what counts as important, but should instead follow the sources. --Rob (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that all city councillors always generate sufficient coverage in their local media to get past WP:GNG on that basis. They are not a class of topic where some would get past that gate and others in the same city would not; local media have a legal and ethical obligation to cover local politics, so all city councillors technically always have a base level of coverage that would pass our GNG rule if an exclusively local claim of notability were sufficient. But we do not have the volume of editor manpower necessary to properly maintain the thousands upon thousands of biographies of city councillors that we would have to accept if nominally passing GNG on purely local coverage were the only criterion that had to be met — the wikimodel of allowing anyone to edit an article at all, and then relying on the oversight of other editors to ensure that the articles remain properly compliant with our content policies instead of becoming advertorial campaign brochures and/or hotbeds of unsourced personal criticism and partisan vandalism, only works for articles that attract a broad spectrum of interested readers, and falls on its ass very quickly for low-visibility topics.

Accordingly, the test that city councillors have always had to meet in the notability sweepstakes is not just the existence of local media sourcing — a criterion that wouldn't exclude any city councillors at all — but rather a claim of notability that's demonstrably and substantively more than strictly local in nature. Most city councillors can only do that by serving in a city that's large and internationally famous enough that its local politics actually generates national and international coverage in its own right, but a select few in smaller cities can still get over the bar by emerging as a nationally recognized spokesperson on a political issue (LGBT, environmental activism, etc.) that gets that person into national or international media. Either way, however, the test has always been that the person is likely to be known to a broad spectrum of readers that cuts outside the boundaries of a single city — because we cannot properly maintain the sheer volume of content that we would have to accept if merely being a city councillor were a sufficient claim of notability in its own right.

And what's lacking in all of the Hamilton city councillors that I nominated for deletion last week is any substantive reason why anybody outside of Hamilton itself should have any interest in them. Every city councillor in Hamilton has been mentioned in enough Hamilton Spectator coverage to get past GNG if a local-to-Hamilton claim of significance were all that we required — but for very good reasons, people who are notable primarily or exclusively as city councillors have to clear a much higher bar than merely local coverage or significance, because most cities simply do not have the ability to provide us with a large enough spectrum of responsible, committed editors to keep articles properly and adequately monitored for policy compliance if the topic's notability and "fame" is limited to that one city alone, and almost nobody outside of that one city is ever actually going to see the article very often, let alone have enough interest in the topic to actively keep it watchlisted. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there's a community consensus on WP:GNG that's substantially different than a plain reading of what it actually says, than you should seek a revision of it to match the version that you are promoting. What's happening is people who read what the guidelines say, carefully follow them, and carefully demonstrate an article meets those guidelines as written are making articles only to have a huge amount of work deleted. We shouldn't expect editors to have to read through all the AFDs to find out what happens in their particular area of interest. --Rob (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting an alternate reading of GNG that differs from the existing consensus; I'm clarifying what the notability consensus actually is for city councillors — when they're deemed to have passed GNG or POLITICIAN and when not, and why that consensus is what it is. Virtually all of our notability cutoffs, including GNG, generally require far more than exclusively local coverage to deem that a topic has passed. A musician doesn't normally pass NMUSIC if her RS coverage and notability is exclusively local to one single city (even if you can cite 100 purely local articles, she still has to meet at least one criterion that would make her a topic of broader national or international interest); a television or radio personality doesn't normally pass our inclusion rules for those topics if the sourcing and notability claim is exclusively local to one single media market (even if you can cite 100 purely local articles, he still has to meet at least one criterion that would make him a topic of broader national or international interest); and on and so forth. We virtually always require, in fact, substantive evidence that a broader readership, not exclusively local to one single city, would or could have some interest in the topic. Even for GNG, purely local single-market coverage, supporting a notability claim that's exclusively local in nature, has been quite consistently deemed not to pass it when that's been tested at AFD. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is what you claim it to be, than clearly WP:GNG as currently *written* does not match consensus, and should be changed. So, you should seek a change in the wording of WP:GNG to match the consensus, as you see it. You keep on re-arguing what consensus is, but nothing you're saying can be found in what is written in guidelines. The word "local" can't even be found in GNG or anywhere in Wikipedia:Notability. Most editors don't follow AFD as much as us, and have no way of knowing what this "consensus" is, since you're promoting something only found by your experience in AFD, and not written in guidelines. How exactly do you think editors are supposed to know all of these rules you espouse, if they're not written in guidelines? --Rob (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat . Bearcat has done some great work over the past few months in developing a greater consensus over the meaning of WP:Politician. Unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG, unelected candidates for federal offices merit a redirect to a relevant election page, local municipal councilmembers (unless part of a world-class city) and small town mayors are deleted. Ambassadors are scrutinized to see if they meet WP:GNG or another criteria. A greater consensus is also emerging on how large a city might be for the mayor to merit notability under WP:Politician. (Personally, I think the bar should be set at 100,000). This consensus is apparent for those people following these AfD debates on politicians, and is a good rule of thumb for this project. Enos733 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I haven't done anything to change or develop a greater consensus over the meaning of WP:POLITICIAN. I may have been one of the more forceful and active explainers, in some recent discussions where there was some confusion or dissent, of what the existing consensus actually already is and why — but I certainly haven't created any new points of consensus that were in any meaningful way different from the existing standards. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - agreed, but consensus is something that develops and redevelops over time - as editors come and go - as new information or understanding about sources change - or as editors change their minds about certain categories. In your work, what you and others are doing is reinforcing the existing consensus that has developed (and at this particular moment). So, in a sense, these AfDs are a part of a continuing process of how we understand the meeting of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, and what is and what is not notable. I just want to applaud your work. Enos733 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Ridge, Saskatchewan[edit]

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

Notability of this community not verified by reliable secondary sources. Google search for "Strawberry Ridge" Saskatchewan -wikipedia yields essentially nothing but real estate websites. Neither Statistics Canada nor the CGNDB, which would be reliable secondary sources, recognize the place within the RM of Aberdeen No. 373. [1] [2] [3] [4] Past consensus for similar articles is that country/rural residential subdivisions (real estate developments) are not inherently notable simply for existing. Hwy43 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hwy43 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable small-scale housing development. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:11, 16 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 21:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A housing division with 10 houses on it that does not have its own governing body. Falls into the second paragraph of WP:GEOLAND. KDS4444^Talk 11:14, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey countries[edit]

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

There are hundreds of countries with or without rinks and ice hockey, and even now, it's not that good. Fails WP:HOCKEY and WP:COUNTRIES. AaronWikia (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this topic is covered in reliable sources as a group. Unclear inclusion requirements: many of the countries listed don't appear to play ice hockey at all. Pburka (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be inclined to advocate deletion, on the grounds that this is about as vague and useless a list as it comes (never mind the number of entries that state specifically that ice hockey isn't actually played there) -- would Bhutan be list-worthy as an "ice hockey" country if I had a pickup pond game with a buddy and the video went up on YouTube? -- but the nom hasn't actually proffered any valid rationale to delete. "It's not that good" is certainly not a valid reason, and WP:HOCKEY and WP:COUNTRIES are the pages for the associated WikiProjects; they don't in any way, shape or form constitute notability criteria. Ravenswing 02:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep if proper criteria are specified and enforced, e.g. possessing a professional league or playing in international competitions, and rename something better (List of ice hockey-playing countries?). Côte d'Ivoire gets on the list just for having an unused hockey rink??? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation serves essentially the same purpose, but infinitely better. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if fixed up. There is overlap with articles such as Ice hockey in Africa and articles on ice hockey in individual countries. This list could be edited and links provided to existing articles that cover continents and countries: that would fulfil a legitimate purpose as navigation. I'm concerned that redirecting it to List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation will obscure information on some countries which may have played hockey or play hockey but are not members of the federation. Although I certainly agree there's no sense in duplicating information on countries which are active in the IIHF. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as I'm concerned, such a list serves a useful purpose and concisely conveys a plethora of information on worldwide hockey. While I will concur that the sourcing is sub par at best and that most of the countries where hockey is a total unknown (Burkina Faso, Maldives, etc.) should be removed, I wouldn't advocate for deleting the entire article. I also agree with Colapeninsula that the potential for losing valuable information exists were the article to be deleted. For instance, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are hockey-playing countries - albeit on a small scale - but as neither country has joined the IIHF, the details presented on the page would disappear from the wiki. Many such claims, as with the aforementioned countries, are easily sourceable and I have the requisite knowledge to locate said sources. But just as note, the SIHR has (or had) profiles detailing "all" (non-hockey countries included) countries from the letters A-E. So it could serve as a useful resource for some of the lesser-known countries where activities may exist in some form. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. It's a bit obscured, but both Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are listed in the last template as significant non-members. Perhaps listing the non-member countries in the template in a new section or in a See also section would work. I just don't like having two lists with that much overlap. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is why 64.4.93.100 keeps getting rid of these countries with no ice rinks or ice hockey. AaronWikia (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because countries with no ice rinks or ice hockey are not ice hockey countries; not because the page must be deleted. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the nom, it is already assumed that you desire for the article to be deleted, thus including a Delete vote here is unnecessary. Other than that I agree with the IP. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and keep. Here's what I now propose. First, rename List of countries where ice hockey is played. Second, create a section for the IIHF, with a brief summary and link to List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation. Third, in a section titled say "Non-IIHF members", list the other countries, but exclude those with no business being on this list (e.g. that hockey superpower Côte d'Ivoire). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the reasons given by Clarityfiend and Hockeyben. Dolovis (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete - Clarityfiend, what do you mean "List of countries where ice hockey is played?". AaronWikia (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot keep voting "Delete;" please stop doing that. You also still haven't presented valid grounds upon which deletion can be considered. Ravenswing 19:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Countries where the sport is played on some organized basis, e.g. a league, federation, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fascinating discussion and a darn good example of why I quit editing on here. It appears that AaronWikia in fact created this article, made most of the edits, got into an edit war, blanked the page and THEN decided to nominate it for deletion when he didn't get his way. In some form, this article seems to serve a purpose but I agree that the term 'Ice hockey countries' is misleading. It must be fixed to keep, otherwise, in it's present form I believe it will continue to generate controversy. MiracleMat (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: as bad faith nomination. Nice catch, MiracleMat; it didn't occur to me to look over the article history. It also prompted me to visit the nom's talk page, where (a bit to my embarrassment) I found a prod which I'd myself filed for another of the nom's articles that he'd deprodded with the classic edit summary "You can't proposed articles for deletion! >:()", followed by a swift and sure AfD, for an ice hockey "federation" that didn't actually exist. Ravenswing 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It says "Permission error", that means I cannot delete the page without permission. What should I do? AaronWikia (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You do nothing, is what you do; once created, the article isn't yours. Ravenswing 22:05, 27 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 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, New Haven[edit]

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

All three references are quoting the same source, and I haven't found any other references to Chinatown, Yale. This entry on the help desk (which is what alerted me to it) says it's not known as Chinatown. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I don't know why I thought it was "Chinatown, Yale". Googling "Chinatown, New Haven" does produce one other reference, but it's wikitravel, so I think the point still stands. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to be a well-established location that is notable enough to warrant an article. If appropriate, adding a mention of it to New Haven, Connecticut would be good. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence is offered that it is a Chinatown. Maproom (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reasons as above, plus the fact that the article's main purpose seems to be advertising. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet standards for neighbourhoods, fails Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). --Bejnar (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable for its own article. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Maybe add something to New Haven, Connecticut and Redirect? --Jersey92 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGEO, per others above. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murray (politician)[edit]

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

While this article was kept in a prior discussion back in 2006, Wikipedia's inclusion rules and content standards have evolved significantly in the eight years since, and are now much stricter than the ones that permitted it at the time. Consensus has since determined that city councillors don't meet WP:POLITICIAN, except in a very narrow range of internationally famous "world" cities in the millions population range (thus excluding this city) — and the sourcing isn't up to contemporary standards either. Even though I argued "keep" the first time, by 2014 wikistandards it has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is local ordinary politician, based on past outcomes and in accord with the nomination. As noted in other, concurrent nominations, we are not a directory of local officials. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has already been kept at AfD once... Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a tolerably well done piece, it's a tolerably well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poorly sourced piece — and since consensus can change, the fact that it was kept once before (eight years ago, as I pointed out, under a much looser set of content standards than those that apply in 2014) does not mean it's entitled to be kept forever without significant improvement. And Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for WP:BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McHattie[edit]

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}}.

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. While the article is not as badly sourced as some of the other city councillors I've nominated for deletion today, the volume of sourcing present is not enough to demonstrate that he's more notable than most other city councillors. His current candidacy for mayor doesn't help, either, as candidates for municipal office do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates — no prejudice against recreation in October if he wins the mayoralty, but he's not entitled to an article just for being a mayoral candidate or a city councillor. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Bearcat/Whatever: Where a municipal politician does not pass one of the size-based inclusion criteria above, their chances of being considered notable enough for inclusion may be improved by the use of national or regional, rather than exclusively local, sources. For instance, a small-town mayor or a non-metropolitan city councillor who can be shown to have garnered coverage in The New York Times or The Globe and Mail is more likely to be considered notable than one who can be sourced only to the local community weekly.

Brian McHattie has garnered coverage in regional and national publications on a number of occasions including the Globe and Mail [5], Toronto Star [6], [7], and Metro News [8]. The article has been updated to include more non-local sources. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcnaught (talk • contribs)

— Hmcnaught (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're citing an as-yet-undistributed draft, which I have yet to even submit for the necessary consensus review to even have it adopted as an essay (let alone an actual, binding inclusion guideline), as prima facie proof that he passes the actual notability guideline in its actual form? Er, no. And even if that unfinished draft were in any way binding on Wikipedia, there's still a big difference between "more likely to be considered notable" and "will definitely be considered notable" — "chances may be improved" is not the same thing as "guaranteed to be kept". (And incidentally, considering the deeply-intertwined interrelationship of Hamilton with the GTA, the Globe and the Star and Metro are part of Hamilton's local media landscape. And his name being mentioned in coverage of something else is not the same thing as coverage of him, either — those articles are not substantively about him, but merely glance off his name once or twice in the process of being coverage of something else.)

And in addition, it bears noting that I strongly suspect a conflict of interest here — brand-new Wikipedia contributors who suddenly appear in an AFD discussion about a politician, as their first-ever contributions to Wikipedia, are almost never truly disinterested and neutral parties. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton and GTA are separate markets with their own media sources in both print and television. The Toronto Star is properly described as a regional paper quite separate from the local market of the Hamilton Spectator. The Globe and Mail is widely known as one of two national Canadian newspapers and cannot accurately be described as a paper local to Hamilton any more than it can be considered local to Montreal or Vancouver. Coverage in these sources, combined with significant coverage in numerous local reliable and mainstream media sources spanning radio, television, print, and web meets the notability criteria described in Wikipedia:Notability (people): Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthorton2014 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Jthorton2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Toronto Star most certainly does include Hamilton in the coverage area of its local sections. The Globe and Mail prints dedicated "Toronto" sections which are not distributed to the rest of the country, and it most certainly does include coverage of Hamilton in that local section. He is not the subject of any of the articles that have been added to the article today as extra "sourcing"; he is merely named, in passing, in a handful of articles whose primary subjects are other things. And the fact that this comment was your first-ever contribution to Wikipedia means that you're raising the same conflict of interest suspicions as Hmcnaught above. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local politician with no notice outside of his local areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Generally only councillors in very large cities are accorded notability. Hamilton does not count as such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, there are a bunch of sources provided, but they're not substantially about McHattie himself, they just report his position on various issues or feature a quote. For a public official such as this, I feel that if notability is not slam-dunk obvious, then it probably doesn't exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Challenge[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK Laun chba ller 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. COATRACK would apply if this article had 100 or more subsections that were duplicating the entire content of the separate article about each show — but all it's doing is listing the shows, not trying to repeat entire articles about them, and we do allow lists of this type. Most (although admittedly not all) television networks, at least in larger countries with enough Wikipedia contributors to maintain them, do have such lists and there's no real reason why this one is different from all of the others. Keep unless there's a better reason for deletion than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 21:23, 24 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 02:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Jackson (politician)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. Article's only "sources" are his own profile on the city's website (i.e. a primary source) and a table of the results from an election he ran in (i.e. a trivial source), and thus the article makes no credible or sourced claim that he's more notable than most other city councillors. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete this is local ordinary politician, based on past outcomes and in accord with the nomination. As noted in other, concurrent nominations, we are not a directory of local officials. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Duvall[edit]

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN, with no substantive claim that he's in any meaningful way more notable than most other city councillors. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comes no where near meeting the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank D'Amico[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. Referenced exclusively to unretrievably incomplete sources that cite only the name of the publication and the date, and not the actual title of the article in question. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete A local politician that does not pass notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is local ordinary politician, based on past outcomes and in accord with the nomination. As noted in other, concurrent nominations, we are not a directory of local officials. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a well done piece, it's a well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced exclusively to unverifiably incomplete and therefore unretrievable references. Which makes it a "well-sourced" article how, exactly? And Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for WP:BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatantly fails our notability requirements for politicians. Incomplete sources as pointed by nominator. Cavarrone 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus of the discussion is that POLITICIAN was not met. This subject did have some mention in sourcing apart from her political career, raising the possibility of keeping under the GNG, but the invocation of NOTINERITED seems appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Copps[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. The only other substantive claim of notability here is the fact that she's related to two other people who do pass POLITICIAN (husband was a mayor, daughter was a federal MP) — but notability is not inherited. The article is "referenced", but only in a very poor style that includes the name of the newspaper and the date, but not the actual title of the reference in question — making it effectively an unreferenced article anyway, since the references aren't verifiable as things currently stand. And even then, none of the content suggests that she's more notable in any substantive way than most other city councillors who don't qualify for articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. There are several hundred articles with her exact name and "Hamilton" I found using Proquest. I only added one to to article so far, on her leaving council, which was an indepth piece exclusively about her. Below I listed a few other substantive pieces. The only thing preventing a comphrensive full length well cited article is somebody having the large amount of time/interest required. Given the poor state of the article, I won't cry if it's deleted, but think it does technically meet the requirements to be kept. --Rob (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mom, and colleagues, left out when minister spoke: [Final Edition] / Peters, KenView Profile. The Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 06 May 1994: B1.
- Copps apologizes for 'waste capital of world' quip: [Final Edition] / Humphreys, Adrian. The Hamilton Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 22 July 1993: A1/ FRONT.
- Copps quits Sludgegate probe team: [Final Edition] / The Hamilton Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 19 Feb 1992: B3.
- Liberal MP's mother won't be renamed citizenship judge: [FINAL Edition] / The Gazette [Montreal, Que] 12 Mar 1985: B6.
Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a tolerably well done piece, it's a tolerably well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of her mention in news media is inhereted from her late husband or her daughter. She is not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus of the discussion is that POLITCIAN was not met. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Whitehead[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN, relying almost exclusively on primary and unreliable sources for "referencing" — the only citation that passes muster here is not enough to demonstrate that he's more notable than most other city councillors who don't qualify for Wikipedia articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article, as written, doesn't even surpass GNG, let alone the specific inclusion standards for politicians that you're so eager to criticize — even GNG requires more than one RS. And Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatantly fails our notability guideline for politicians. Sources such as MyHamilton.ca and Hamilton Spectator are too local to confer notability for GNG and none of them include "significant coverage" about the subject. Furthermore, the aforementioned articles appear to be pure routinary electoral reports. Cavarrone 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Caplan[edit]

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

Minimally-sourced WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN, and which makes no credible claim that he's more notable than most other city councillors either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus of the discussion is that POLITCIAN was not met. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Braden[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough for its city councillors to pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being city councillors. In addition, while the article does cite sources, nearly all of them are primary or unreliable ones, and the few that pass muster are not enough to make him more notable than most other city councillors. For an extra bonus, the article contains several unverifiable WP:NPOV violations (e.g. "Mr. Braden is a problem solver who applies innovative thinking to many of the challenges facing all Canadians"), and is edited so rarely that it still asserts that he will run in an election that took place three years ago. (That candidacy doesn't get him over the POLITICIAN bar either, as he didn't win the seat and people don't qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not "Ontariopedia" and we do not need articles on every city councilor in the province. It almost feels like we have such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not even remotely close to that. People trying to create articles on city councillors who don't pass our notability rules as written are a problem that exists everywhere — Ontario does not have a higher volume of such articles being attempted than California or Texas or Connecticut or Yorkshire or Leicestershire do. (There might be a slight difference in how much you're aware of them, since as a resident of Ontario who actively works with categories I frequently throw a batch at AFD all at once, when necessary, instead of just nominating one isolated case and not noticing 15 other AFD candidates at all, as might happen elsewhere — but trust me, these exist everywhere and not just in Ontario.) Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..........and that is a problem, how, exactly?!?! Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City councillors anywhere outside of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities are almost never a topic of even the slightest interest to anyone outside of the councillor's own city — and because of that, are very nearly impossible to adequately monitor for WP:BLP compliance. I've come across many biographies of city councillors where editors with an agenda have inserted unsourced and WP:NPOV-violating personal criticism, and that criticism has survived in the article for months because the person wasn't a topic of broad enough interest for any responsible Wikipedians to actually notice that it was there. That fact is just one of the many reasons why the standard has long been that a municipal councillor normally only qualifies for an article if you can make a credible case that they're a topic of much broader than usual interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively local, readership — such as serving on the council of a major metropolitan world city, or somehow achieving substantial recognition and fame well beyond the city limits of their own home cities (e.g. by emerging as a nationally recognized spokesperson on a political issue). Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a well done piece, it's a well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the sources here are primary or unreliable sources. Which makes it a "well-sourced" piece how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. A bunch of primary and unreliable local sources do not make a person notable, not to mention the promotional tone of the article ("Mr. Braden is a problem solver who applies innovative thinking to many of the challenges facing all Canadians."). Requiring WP:IAR in the current case does not make any sense except WP:ILIKEIT. Cavarrone 12:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally only councillors in very large cities are accorded notability. Hamilton does not count as such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 30 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 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Malik[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON as WP:V search comes up with social media and people unrelated to subject. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, just simple anchor, even there is no any mention of this anchor in given reference( in website of express news). Plus no independent sources found after search. Absolutely fails under WP:NPERSON. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Fai zan 06:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atria Senior Living[edit]

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

This company may claim (unproven and of dubious importance) to be "one of the largest assisted living companies" in the USA, but this article is largely cited to primary sources and I can't see anything substantial online to justify keeping this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on the basic information provided in the article, this is a notable company (there are less accomplished ones with articles). The article certainly needs better references and a rewrite to make it less like a brochure. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per [9], [10], [11], [12]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 29 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 02:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Morelli[edit]

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

Biography of a city councillor, in a city not large enough for its city councillors to pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being city councillors. In addition, the article's only non-primary source is the article about his death in the local newspaper, thus failing to demonstrate that there's actually enough substantive coverage of him to invoke the WP:GNG loophole. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a large series of biographies of city councilors in not that large Ontario cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 27 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 Jacob Anderson. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Than Ever (Raleigh Ritchie song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Given the existence of Stronger Than Ever (Christina Aguilera song) - the history of which is muddled up in this page's history and should be separated - a disambiguation page may be a good idea. Laun chba ller 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacob Anderson - Stronger Than Ever (Jacob Anderson song) is a redirect too - The song may become notable in the coming weeks/months but for now It's not, I would say Delete but no doubt someone will just recreate it and it'll be one big merry-go-round!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Yes, one sentence does not make this notable, despite a chart. — ₳aron 20:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacob Anderson. A chart is just a published list, nothing that indicates "significant coverage in reliable sources". Easily noted and summarized in the target article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:16, 26 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 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Gandhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. From the article, he appears to be a Ph.D. student, not someone with his own independent research program. People at that level pass WP:PROF only extremely rarely, and he does not appear to be one of the exceptions. In particular his Google scholar profile lists only two papers with three citations, far far beneath the threshold for criterion #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sources are not enough to establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PhD student who's not notable yet. Way too soon. Does not meet WP:PROF. Cowlibob (talk) 10:17, 30 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 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Gauni[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG or WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines. Claim to fame is a Non-notable film. Sources to back up this include IMDB, Youtube, and other Wikis which is 100% not appropriate. Submission originally made to AFC where it was declined multiple times for lack of notability [13]. In short this submission is not appropriate for mainspace as indicated by 2 successful A7 speedy deletions previously [14] in addition to the poor quality of this submission. Prod was turned down by the advocate for this article who seems to have a single minded fascination with the subject to the point that I have to wonder if a conflict of interest may exist between the editor and the subject. Hasteur (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IT guy turned script writer and actor. His first feature film primiered recently, but I fail to find anything that makes subject meet WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notability here, and have no problem with deletion of this article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was only ever a faint hope at WP:AFC. This permalink shows my review of the article as it stood then. One day the person may be notable, just not yet. Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Gauni story is not as it is been seen behind a keyboard. It has to be told to help it identify as notable person. It not any obsession as one of you suggest's neither any conflict of interest as other may say. Totally unfounded behind some text. It's determination to have collective intelligence applied. My assertion stands — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanVanKant (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 June 2014‎— DanVanKant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - as I stated on my talk page, while communicating with the article creator, the article subject fails the golden rule - apart from a few youtube interviews, there are pretty much no relevant results if you search for the name on Google. This person, with the current secondary sources available, is just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I fail to understand why it was recreated after so many other editors reached this conclusion too, and the page creator was aware of this. Add this to the general poor (potentially un-encyclopedic) quality of the article, and I endorse its deletion. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ - that's exactly my point. Your points of ref are same searches on Internet where as there is more word of mouth notable references. It has taken me consistent effort to keep convincing so many editors but "hard work" pays off. Just to show that getting subjective does not derive your end results. Once can shrink and ref and get "Gauni" a start. Once they see even a one line mention others will build on it. How many people can be a firefighter, write books, make films and give everything away. That is notable and noble itself DanVanKant (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ This is where my challenge has been. Gauni is the first ethnic guy actually to achieve that and Rock Paper Dice Enter is the first commercially released 100% Canadian feature film of suspense thriller genre from City of Edmonton to released worldwide this is as confirmed by Global news live yesterday. My challenge has been how do we build on all that information. It is difficult to share all this to editors behind a keyboard.I see this as no diff than a civil rights movement in 60's or of LGBT acceptance. Canadian mainstream cinema started to change in 2014. its is landmarkDanVanKant (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DavVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DanVanKant This is not a vote. Attempting to make it look like there is multiple people voting for keeping will only unite the consensus against keeping. Do not attempt to vote any more. You may elaborate your viewpoint by making Comment remarks, but no more keeps. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur I am sorry that was not the intent. but noted. Trust me I have taken every advice from Editors and you have see the sincerity behind it DanVanKant (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI hope this is right way of defense. I am getting advise from very cool Editors. So lets do this;

1. For "Gauni" I have been constantly seeking right reference. Lately his profile has started showing up in public there is There is hardly any reference of him being ethnic. There are two remarkable first's here - First Brown Volunteer Brown Firefighter for City of Brampton, there is reference about it with the City and Mayor's speeches but no way to present.Hence with the film itself Rock Paper Dice Enter the Mayor, Minister of Culture and The Senator from Ottawa were present on opening night of film Rock Paper Dice Enter. How many times one sees that on a opening night of film. The reason they were there because Gauni has that notability of what he is doing for community. This has been in news and when I had references from Senate of Canada making that clear mention and one Editor thought of it as it was with poor intent 2. For "Gauni" My other right references are his Bibliography. The book is part of Five star good read. Harper Collins also has references of more stuff coming out soon but hard to present 3. For "Gauni" My other right references are his volunteer work. Part of his Heart and Stroke is public but the other part I cannot reference back is part "Million Dollar" pledge team There are no clever reference here. That is "correct" because I am presenting what is in public domain. I have no accessibility to all other references to be presented here but I have sincerely tried to connect dots I rest the case on what is Wikipedia mandate and respect itDanVanKant (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This nomination is pretty well grounded in policy, and I agree with every point made. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability has been provided. This person may be talented, and may become notable in the future. If so, that will be the time to write a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Cowlibob (talk) 10:21, 30 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 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technolabs Software Services Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Not a noteworthy company. The article is exclusively dependent on primary sources. Searches for the company or its products yield only online directories, social media and the company's own website. The article has been both speedy- and PROD-deleted previously. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 12:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything substantial for the mentioned products, either. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence found from multiple searches to indicate that this company is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant find any evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:05, 26 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 06:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alagie Ousman Jeng[edit]

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

Player has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY. No other achievements garnering sufficient, significant, reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Contested PROD with no reason given. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL In fact I even doubt an 18 year old has as many clubs in his senior career. Seasider91 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Cowlibob (talk) 10:25, 30 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of voice actors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is just way to broad of a list. There are hundreds, if not thousands of voice actors out there. This list is not even complete, and even now, it is too long to navigate. We already have categories for voice actors that can be used. If someone was to go through the effort to divide the article into separate articles for each nationality (ex: List of American voice actors, List of British voice actor, etc) then I will withdraw my nomination, but that is not easy to do. JDDJS (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but strip out all names that don't have articles here. As long as it is limited to those that are known primarily as voice actors, and not including people that did a voice over once, it is a very reasonable list. A similar list where we police the names fairly tight is List of festivals in the United States. List just needs mild pruning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and nuke anyone who you can't find a reliable source citing their voice acting (not just their article, it may be unsourced or not cite that). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: we got to where when people listed a reliable source, we would create a stub. Most people will add a primary link, not understanding the difference. So yes, I agree in theory. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be proposing a split rather than deletion proper. Note also that this list is a subset of List of actors and so forms part of an enormous tree of lists. Andrew (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm proposing a deletion, but I am willing to settle for a split. Including every voice actor in the world, even if it's just the notable ones, into one article is too much. JDDJS (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They you would discuss and properly fork it, you would never delete it. "This article has too much accurate and sourced information" is a poor excuse to delete. Holding a deletion threat over editors if they don't instantly fork it, well, is rather unseemly. AFD is the wrong place to discuss forking it, the article talk page is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, this list article is complementary to (the subcategories of) Category:Voice actors. Per WP:SIZESPLIT it's a good candidate for splitting, since the article is at around 195 kilobytes, but lack of such being performed is not a valid deletion rationale. List inclusion criteria, potential splits, etc. can be further discussed on the article's talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna play devil's advocate here and point out that Category:Voice actors is a Container category. On the Keep side of the argument, there is so little English-language coverage of voice actors that requiring big-time sources will keep the list smaller. Anarchangel (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slightly modified my !vote above (in parentheses). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above - As noted above the redlinks need to go. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I first thought WP:SNOW, but this does meet the speedy reasons. Yes, the red needs to go. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not the biggest fan of WP:NOTDUP, but this is a pretty obvious keep. I agree that most of these issues should be addressed on the article's talk page. There are legitimate issues that need to be resolved, but AfD is not the place to do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:08, 25 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) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Manners[edit]

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

Deletion requested by 180.216.99.150 (talk · contribs), with the rationale "This seems to be a vanity page written by his staff with mention of his self-published books and other un notable activities. He deserves a mention on the ANDEV page and the miners hall of fame but not his own vanity wikipedia page." I have no opinion on this matter. Number 5 7 15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For attention of the closer, please note canvassing by Zigzig20s at the Libertarianism and Conservatism WikiProjects. Number 57 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I have censored my comments on the pages of those wikiprojects, but I still believe they need to be warned that this is happening.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, please look at the talkpage and see that some info is being removed as we are discussing a possible AFD. This does not look neutral to me. It could be seen as a way to make the article look weaker, thus possibly leading to a deletion.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of his books have been removed AGAIN, by the same unregistered address.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please "vote" on his talkpage on whether to keep his books or remove them. I vote yes, to eschew obscurantism.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fully referenced page about a prominent mining investor (including chairman of publicly traded companies), founder and chairman of a prominent free market think tank, member of the Mont Pelerin Society, Board member of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, etc. Clearly notable. Not a vanity page at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IP nominator clearly hadn't read WP:GNG or WP:BEFORE. The subject is notable, therefore keep. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the deleted, yet noteworthy material, is restored. Promotional language toned down. Canvassing by Zig may have been prompted by frustration at the edits seen, but does not impact the argument for deletion one way or the other. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the vast bulk of this article seems cited to Manner's online biographies and a laughably small mention in a news article about Gina Rinehart, so I can see why someone would have serious concerns about it. However, there is a lengthy 2011 article about him in the Sydney Morning Herald and a radio programme which seems to have him as the main guest, which suggests this guy has some notability. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent mainstream sources, some good books on history of mining, notable in his own right. Wondering where the OP got their notions about vanity and staff from - this is the very antithesis of a vanity article full of puff and fluff. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this looks like a bit of a strangely-written article in that it almost makes him look less notable, but the sources and claims to notability are very much there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work but notable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For some reason, this nomination was also added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 21, in addition to the log for June 24. I have removed the June 21 entry. Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 28 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 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr clement[edit]

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

Non notable vanispamcruftisement autobiography. CSDed multiple times, author warned about autobiographies. So far, nothing out of the ordinary. However, I did spot this interview piece and a claim to have appeared in Clutter Magazine (which seems to be verifiable). Now that's not exactly going to put him on a par with Banksy, but probably enough to have a full conversation, especially as things might turn up in non-English sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not really finding anything for "Mr Clement" (other than, say, Mr Clement Attlee, for example). The article, by a user with "Lapin" as well as Mr. Clement's name in his/her user name, cites several inclusions in a Lapin World Tour for which Google finds little coverage, even less, such as the articles Ritchie333 identified, being both substantial and independent. In fact, I see "petit lapin" itself is identified specifically with "Mr Clement", so perhaps these tours are artist-produced. All in all, I agree with Ritchie333, unless more coverage turns up. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:AUTOBIO. Given the number of times he's already tried to recreate this in the face of deletions, also strongly consider editblocking the creator if he tries again. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist fails WP:CREATIVE. I ran his name through some Chinese search engines, and discovered only that he seems to also be known as Petit Lapin per this fashion blog. No other reliable sources found. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: Petit lapin (French, for little rabbit) is one of the characters he designed, and produces illustrations/models etc of. (I browsed the linked website/blog.) So Petit Lapin is identified with "Mr Clement" in the same way the Mickey Mouse character is identified with Mr Walt Disney. Mr Disney being rather more famous obv. --91.125.182.5 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)^{(formerly: User:91.125.29.135)}[reply]

Thanks 91.125.182.5, quite correct. Rabbit or no rabbit, he still doesn't appear to be notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update The author posted a note to my talk page indicating that he/she isn't MrClement. On the one hand, I suppose that means it's a user name violation, but on the other hand it would mean this is, at least, not an autobiography. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:00, 29 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 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technolabs Software Services Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Not a noteworthy company. The article is exclusively dependent on primary sources. Searches for the company or its products yield only online directories, social media and the company's own website. The article has been both speedy- and PROD-deleted previously. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 12:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything substantial for the mentioned products, either. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence found from multiple searches to indicate that this company is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant find any evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:05, 26 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) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Reddit communities[edit]

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

Disparate list of links that have subjectively been termed "controversial" by editors. This is original research, and without sources to define these subreddits specifically as being "controversial", has no place on Wikipedia. Zambelo; talk 11:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a spinout of the "Controversies involving Reddit" section from the main Reddit article. Each section has one or more independent sources detailing a controversy that took place involving the community in question - 1 2 3 4, and most sections even have sources directly calling the community or their views "controversial" - 1 2 3 4. If a section does not warrant inclusion, it should be removed, but that is a matter for the talk page and not AfD. Breadblade (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are sourced and the alternative to a page collecting controversial Reddit communities would be separate articles on /r/jailbait, /r/creepshots, /r/mensrights etc. that people would just call to merge anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Every inclusion here is well sourced. It would be undue to merge all of this content into the Reddit article, so it's better to keep this as a separate article --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; article is well-sourced and is definitely not original research. The communities aren't deemed controversial by editors, but by the reliable sources referenced in the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. In most cases, it's the controversy that was notable rather than the community. That a creepshots community exists may be controversial in its own right, but not that a MensRights community exists. Men's Rights is certainly a controversial cause, but unlike creepshots or jailbait the controversy isn't over its mere existence. And certainly /r/technology is not a "controversial community," but a community in/for which there has been controversy. So I'd say keep but rename to something like Reddit controversies, List of Reddit controversies (with formatting changes), or something more general if there's more that could be included like Social impact of Reddit. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: I'd propose this on the article's talk page; much better place to discuss the matter to get a consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely. Copied it over there. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand. It's got plenty of references. Some of them look weak or unreliable, but that can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the nominator's point, even if I don't agree with it. I've seen the same issue arise when there's a "Controversies" section in an article, and someone disputes including incidents unless a source explicitly uses the word "controversy" in describing it. While it can lead to inconsistent standards, sometimes you just need to wing it and rely on group consensus for what to include within the scope of a section or article. Agyle (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite the opposite of WP:OR, this is well sourced (as something titled "controversial" should be) and the length and content warrants a standalone article. I don't necessarily disagree with Rhododendrites that it should be renamed, but deleting the article certainly isn't an answer. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 26 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Hedgehog Registry[edit]

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

Declined PROD. This registry is linked from a lot of hedgehog websites, but I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article do not establish notability. Moswento ^talky 08:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable topic per nom. Passing mentions in a book and in the acknowledgements to a scientific paper are not significant coverage and the other references ... well ... they're "other". Philg88 ^♦talk 17:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references are sufficient. This is like a Cat registry, but for hedgehogs. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the concept of a "hedgehog registry", I just fail to see any real discussion of it in sources. I definitely don't agree that the current references are sufficient. They amount to 7 words on the Improbable Research website, 10 words in a book about hedgehogs, a 14-word acknowledgement in a single academic journal paper, and a post on an internet forum. Nowhere near WP:GNG. Moswento ^talky 07:45, 19 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, Sandstein 11:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islampura[edit]

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

No reliable sources exist. Guru-45 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please see WP:BEFORE before initiating an AfD. A quick google books search gives plenty of results, http://books.google.com/books?id=QvmiK6Zj2XsC&pg=PA219 , http://books.google.com/books?id=V9zTOD0K6KYC&pg=PT183 , http://books.google.com/books?id=JGklJI4eiNIC&pg=PA369 , etc. --Soman (talk) 12:44, 16 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, Sandstein 11:12, 24 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. With no prejudice to a new article being created at the same title that honestly represents the sources provided by User:Capmo. I will be happy to userify this article on request for anyone who would like to work on such a project. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paleorrota[edit]

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

I'd like to bring to your attention Portuguese AFD which conclude this subject is a miscellany of original research, use of wikipedia to promote a very (I'd like to stress very) obscure subject. I'm sorry to post a link to a portuguese page as my reason and I'm willing to clarify any point if necessary. sorry for bad english. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't speak Portuguese but it is highly likely that there are some differences between the English and Portuguese WIkipedias. Also, just because something happens in one of them does not mean that it should happen everywhere. Stewart of Appin ~ Follow the Bonnie Prince! 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OTAVIO1981, I think you do have to clarify your points, because basically you just linked us to another discussion, in Portuguese, which few people are able to fully understand. What would be your arguments for the deletion of that page? Basically, the AFD discussion at the PT Wikipedia concluded that most of the article was original research supported by highly questionable sources, that such geopark does not exist, and that the user who created it was closely related to the subject. However, some users admitted that a small part of the article was relevant, and they decided to create a page called "Paleontology of Rio Grande do Sul" with material coming off that page. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete partly on the WP:BLOWITUP principle and, particularly, because I can't see much (or any) evidence that a recognised Geopark exists of this name. I got momentarily excited when I saw a UK Daily Mail article but, unfortunately, Paleorrota isn't mentioned anywhere in it. The non-English language Wikipedias normally have a much lower inclusion criteria than the English one and I'm inclined to believe a large number of Portuguese speaking Wikipedia editors when they say there's no evidence this Geopark exists. It is quite probably a piece of original synthesis by the 'Paleorrota Group' and their web forum. The UNESCO list of Geoparks only includes Geopark Araripe for Brazil, for example. To be honest, if someone could point to one example of a reliable source which establishes the existence of this place, I would probably recommend a 'keep and clean up'. But it looks to me like this article has been a plaything for a single editor for plenty long enough and something major needs to be done. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. Stewart of Appin, I agree that you guys can reach a different conclusion about this article. I didn't analyze how different portuguese and english article were but since I looked for reliable sources and pt and couldn't find any, I opened this AFD without check if they were different. Victor Lopes, my only argumment is that are no reliable source about "paleorrota" or "paleoroute". All hits at google are related to this forum group that try to create this geopark or mirrors from wikipedia. google books or google scholar don't return anything about such geopark. (to be very fair, "this paper" mentioned paleorrota but is a copyvio of this version of karamuru vorax's article). Yes, you are correct that some editors mentioned that exists a relevant activity in paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) and decided to create pt:Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul (check google translation) which I believe is somehow similar to a clean up mentioned by Sionk. However, pay attention that "Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul"'s article don't mention paleorrota since there's no reliable source to point this as an area or even as an informal name for an area in Rio Grande do Sul. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I vote for delete per the above reasons. In addition, the article seems to gather too much loosely related information, it could benefit from a major cleanup, to say the least. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 00:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with what Victor Lopes said above, that the article needs a cleanup. However, I have found various citations to Paleorrota in official documents from all levels of government:

Federal

Ministry of Mines and Energy (page 376)

State

Secretary of Tourism of Rio Grande do Sul
Secretary of Tourism of Rio Grande do Sul, "Santos Caminhos da Fé"

Local

Municipality of Santa Maria and 9 other cities of the region: "Santos Caminhos da Fé" (page 2)
Municipality of Candelária (page 19)

Even though there is no such thing as an official geopark, the concept of Paleorrota seems to be widely spread in the region, as these documents attest. The article could be kept if this point is made very clear in the lead. Alternatively, the article could be renamed to Paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul, with the required adaptations to the text. —capmo (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation of an article that properly represents the sourcing. This article, under this title, fails WP:V. I see this as more than a cleanup issue - we essentially are creating a new article. Since it would be a new article, there's no need to preserve this edit history. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaers Aluminium[edit]

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

unsourced advertising by own employee The Banner talk 10:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V as it is completely unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Overall, this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in the following non-English sources: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you give me the idea that you want to abolish Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The Banner talk 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic meets WP:N, and a polished version of the article based upon reliable sources would benefit Wikipedia's readers over the long-term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes is boils down to this. See the original author. The Banner talk 12:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I added a COI template atop the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I haven't found many English-language sources, but it's likely that additional, non-English language sources exist about this company. Due to this matter, it's also important to keep WP:WORLDVIEW in mind. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NorthAmerica. Not a perfect article, but its soapboxing is at least toned down. Frankly, whatever the guideline says, I fear it sadly inevitable that pretty much all company articles (except perhaps Coca-Cola, McDonald's etc. that people come into contact with on a day-to-day basis) will be written by company employees or former employees. Doesn't mean they should all be deleted - just because I imagine most people are not so fascinated by aluminum that they consider it worth their time writing articles about it, doesn't mean that it isn't notable per se.Brigade Piron (talk) 17:08, 29 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 06:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobogenie[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 4 references have been added since the PROD, but most of these have no value at all in terms of establishing notability. Moswento ^talky 09:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines on software as it does not have reliable independent sources. The article itself reads more like an advertisement than something suitable for an encyclopedia and a large portion of the first sentence is identical to a sentence on this website. MJ94 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Ollieinc (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. All current references apart from the Softpedia entry are clearly labeled as press release or company provided descriptions. Softpedia is a download site and not useful for establishing notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established in the article. I've edited the first sentence, which as MJ94 rightly notes, was a copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:12, 27 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 was that the article lacked reliable sources (primarily press releases) and was excessively promotional. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funstock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some site references now which refer to the site activity. The site has featured prominently in major print publications but not so many online. I hope this is sufficient to avoid deletion. You can do a quick search for both brands and you will see they are reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman47 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 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) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in fact I should think it would have been better to speedy delete the article as blatant advertising. I can't see any significant journalistic coverage at all online to justify keeping this article about this new company. Sionk (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete,There's an article here on MCV (the video games industry website) about the company: http://www.mcvuk.com/press-releases/read/funstock-launches-digital-download-platform-funstockdigital-co-uk/0124948 Megaman47 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 03:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Another article here: http://www.retrogamer.net/blog_post/classic-gaming-championship-kicks-off-soon/ about them sponsoring the countries largest retro gaming championships. Source is the countries #1 retro gaming magazine.Megaman47 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TagTooth[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to be notable: neither independent reliable sources are listed in the article, nor to be found off-wiki. The only references in the article are startup profiles, which would not be sufficient even for article about company, not to mention that the subject of the article is software, not company. The only contributer to the article's content is an editor with virtually no contributions outside this article. Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion per criterion G11 (spam) by MJ94. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Poorly sourced, No independent sources found, and product is also non notable. Fails WP:PRODUCT and no any reliable evidence of its notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Heavy use of marketing language appears to be an advertisement for yet another business trying to jump on the social networking bandwagon. Dolescum (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally tagged this article as a candidate for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the article's creator (thus violating WP:CSD policy). Afterwards, a PROD (added by CZarkoff) was also removed by the article's creator. TagTooth does not pass the product notability guidelines, nor does it pass the general notability guidelines. The article is filled with peacock terms and contains no reliable independent sources. MJ94 (talk) 21:16, 24 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 early delete as no content. Shii (tock) 20:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler the Tax Dogder[edit]

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

I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe it's supposed to be an article on a TV documentary. Or maybe it's an attempt at an essay on the topic. There's no useful sourced information, so there's nothing to merge, meaning simple deletion is best. Rob (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why wasn't this article nominated for speedy deletion? --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish there was a speedy category for this, but I can't find it. --Rob (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found two sources that make this case a bit more complicated: this and this. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a separate article and possibly add the information into the main Hitler article. It serves no real purpose standing on its own. Intothat darkness 18:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced essay. Any reportage about Hitler not paying his taxes belongs in the Hitler article. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is it a documentary ?, Is it a book ? ... No one knows so delete... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mein_Kampf#Popularity has a source from the BBC and the original from Spiegel as well: Hitler dodged taxes, expert finds-BBC News Mythos Ladenhüter-Spiegel Online. The info can be added to bio and also to complete the information about the book that made him all the money: Mein Kampf. It is important to note, as his bio does, that the book only sold well once he had entered into political office in 1933. Everyone apparently wanted to see what all the fuss over this new politician was about by reading his book, rather than the success of the book reflecting an interest in what he was saying that led to a movement to get him elected, if you see what I mean. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a test edit more than anything. Not an encyclopedic topic. Inherently POV title. If this is a piece on a TV documentary, that documentary is not of sufficient cultural status to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 27 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 06:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic (Chris Tomlin album)[edit]

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

This article fails NALBUMS and does not satisfy basic GNG guidelines. HotHat (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indi release from a notable artist before he made it big. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable and independent sources found, just an album released by singer in 1998. A singer may be notable but this album have no any coverage till yet, Plus article has no reference at all and fails under NALBUMS and general notability guidelines. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single source anywhere on this album beyond a simple discography listing.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 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 06:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look (MercyMe album)[edit]

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

This article fails NALBUMS and does not satisfy basic GNG guidelines. HotHat (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indi release from a notable band before they made it big. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me first say that I can overlook the band's titling of this album as the internet bubble was just kicking off, but now with the age of Google, bands should never title an album using a very commonly used verb, especially one that they may end up using (as MercyMe did) in a song title later. I turned up plenty of results with MercyMe song titles with "look" in them, and lots of articles with both MercyMe mentioned and the word "look" used, but I couldn't turn up anything on this album of note. Delete.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 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 06:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Worship Project[edit]

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

The coverage of this album is not sufficient to pass GNG and it really does not pass WP:NALBUMS even with that one lone review of the album at Cross Rhythms. All it has got is to be merely mentioned in the bands overall history. HotHat (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A release from a notable band but without sufficient coverage. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There actually are three sources given in the article - the Cross Rhythms review, an interview by Kim Jones of About.com, and a CCM Magazine article reprinted in Crosswalk.com. In addition, the album sold 60,000 copies, VERY impressive for an unsigned artist, and its success is what helped this now VERY important band get signed on INO. I did a quick Google search, and while I could not find anything right off the bat, I highly suspect that other stuff is out there, as G-hits searches don't find everything. Hold up! - I had a brain wave. I forgot that I own a copy of The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, published in 2002, right when MercyMe was getting started on INO. I knew that there is an entry on MercyMe (there's basically every even marginally significant group in this book), and I just looked it up, and sure enough, a size-able part of the entry, which granted is not very large as MercyMe was just getting going, is dedicated to The Worship Project. Date-wise, Powell confuses it with Look, but his discussion of songs indicates that he is reviewing The Worship Project. All of this can be found on page 587, for those who have access to the book, or who are able to get to that page on Amazon preview. I was going to go for "weak keep" based off the previous three sources, but with four sources discussing the album I'm changing my vote to "keep".--¿3family6 _contribs 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I think notable coverage has been established. Shii (tock) 20:24, 28 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 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to Meet You (MercyMe album)[edit]

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

This article fails NALBUMS and does not satisfy basic GNG guidelines. HotHat (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indi release from a notable band before they made it big. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be some coverage out there, but I can't find it. There a some brief listings of it as part of MercyMe's discography, but nothing that actually discusses the album.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 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 06:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Need (album)[edit]

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

This article fails NALBUMS and does not satisfy basic GNG guidelines. HotHat (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indi release from a notable band before they made it big. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll admit that Google searching "mercyme 'the need'" brings up a lot of sources that just talk about needs, but I do get some discography info. However, that's all I am seeing. No indication that this album was discussed in independent reliable sources. Delete.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The White Album (Hillsong United album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the new references I would like to withdraw my AfD request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This album is not notable under either NALBUMS nor GNG, so it must be removed from this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This album clearly passes GNG and WP:NALBUMS per the five reviews from AllMusic, Cross Rhythms, Indie Vision Music, The Phantom Tollbooth and Louder Than the Music. In addition, it charted on three Billboard charts, which was for the week of March 22, 2014, and those positions were as follows No. 48 on The Billboard 200, No. 4 on the Christian Albums chart, No. 1 on the Dance/Electronic Albums chart.HotHat (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per good research by HotHat. Article is clearly notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well documented in reliable sources, and charted very well.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sloppy, low-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 24 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 06:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jinder jade[edit]

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

Poorly sourced musician bio. I am unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 01:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 'Delete nn musician Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable musician, no any significance found. Looks like an essay, fails WP:MUSICBIO A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aapan Dowain Nachiye is somewhat popular on youtube but not significant enough to mention in an encyclopedia article. Gdfusion (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also no WP:RS, only refs are self-made.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:42, 24 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 as per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawani Singh (politician)[edit]

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

The page is badly Referenced and i can't see a proper assert of notability. Lor^Chat 01:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN as he was a member of the Lok Sabha (lower house) of the Indian Parliament. Source 1 is a old version of the Lok Sabha site. Source 2 is official election results from Election Commission of India. He's listed here as an MP as well which is a Indian government site. [24] Cowlibob (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN, as mentioned above, now further referenced. Nomination can be withdrawn. --Ekabhishek^talk 09:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear keep per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as above.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets the notability guidelines for politicians. It would help if someone could determine if he is still alive or not. Since he was born 103 years ago, he is most likely dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets my standards for attorneys and jurists. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 26 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. Deletion discussions are not a vote count, and none of the single-purpose accounts below made anything resembling a policy-based argument for the subject's notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Spring (Film Director)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:FILMMAKER, no iMDB entry. An article may be appropriate once this person meets notability, but currently is WP:TOOSOON. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's gotten a bit of notice[25] and a short film review[26], which is pretty impressive for a teenager (or most other people), but not sufficient for either FILMMAKER or GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than these 2 sources [27] [28] - I can't find anything else which clearly means he's not notable yet, Good luck for the future tho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a film maker from the North of England myself I can assure you that this kid is pretty big already. He is certainly known across London and I know him from up here in Gateshead. I would say he definitely classes as notable. MightyMariner1 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one's personal opinion counts as a marker of notability. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a film maker from the North of England myself I can assure you that this kid is pretty big already. He is certainly known across London and I know him from up here in Gateshead. I would say he definitely classes as notable. MightyMariner1 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out duplicate comment. This won't be decided by popular vote, so don't duplicate your comments. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just asked one of my film maker buddies in Seattle if he has heard of Jack Spring. He has certainly heard of him as being one of the London film industries best prospects. He has a good backing from the British Film Institute who have funded a host of his films. JonnyGrim (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)— JonnyGrim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your friend from Seattle's opinion doesn't count towards notability. Can't help but note that you created your account after this Afd. Suspected closeness to subject. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His school Greenshaw High School note him as a famous alumni and he is plastered all over their website as a famous alumni.— Katie327 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Katie327 could you sign your comment above so everyone knows who said what? This doesn't count towards notability. Besides this was added to the Greenshaw page by JonnyGrim and Katie327 anyway with no independent sources to support. Katie's account was also created after the start of this Afd. Suspected closeness to the subject. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The things Jack Spring seems to have done already - at 17! Won a wealth of awards and I would feel we would be foolish to delete such a page seeing as this guy seems near certain to be notable (if you feel he already isn't!) Sbutcher02 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)— Sbutcher02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We can't keep a page based on future notability. Same as JonnyGrim and Katie327 created account after this Afd. Suspected closeness to subject. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia, as measured by the existence of substantive coverage in reliable sources, has to already exist for a person to qualify for an article — "the things he's done already at 17" don't demonstrate notability yet if they haven't been covered in real reliable sources yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Minimal local coverage, winning minor awards. Possible COI issue as article creator and contributors seem close to the subject. Wikipedia is not for promoting your friends. Maybe he'll become notable in the future but he's not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; probable conflict of interest article about a person with no properly referenced evidence of notability as of today. I can loosely agree with some of his friends above that he probably will eventually become notable enough for a Wikipedia article if he keeps it up — but the time for that article is when he's actually accomplished something that gets him past WP:CREATIVE, not right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Your school calling you a "notable alumni" does not make you notable. Someone from your general area hearing of you does not make you notable. The "he is a good prospect" line to me yells "this is too soon". We do not make articles on people who might make it good in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 30 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Dunne[edit]

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

I fail to find sources that make subject meet WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:35, 16 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 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded the article slightly and added several more references, will continue to work on it if time is available. JTdale ^Talk 08:55, 24 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Liberalism (book)[edit]

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

Book that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK after some verification. There are several references, but many are 404 (including the book's official website.) One verified article from a local BC paper (the author lives in Abbotsford, a city in BC.) Reception section is completely unreferenced. Uses YouTube, blog posts, and direct links to image files as references. Can't find independent reviews in reliable sources, so despite the visible references, this misses the WP:NBOOK bar. Mikeblas (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 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 00:48, 24 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 06:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Bevan[edit]

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

DBE, being the most junior (and numerous) award of Britain, is not sufficient in itself to establish notability. Zero depth-of-coverage in any third party reliable source. Prod was disupted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - The creator somewhere even admitted being affiliated with her, that aside, There is no evidence of any notability at all, The only thing she appears to be known for is being the head of a school which again isn't notable –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems Dame's are notable after all. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article about the high school seems to be sufficient to describe her. Gdfusion (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Retracted as of 15:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete per above. An article about a non-notable person who works at a non-notable school with the only source being one of her acquaintances. That's not how Wikipedia works.~~ Palmsandshells (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet !vote struck. —DoRD (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, for crying out loud. Of course she qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. The nominator clearly has no understanding whatsoever of the British honours system. A dame is the female equivalent of a knight. It is most certainly not "the most junior (and numerous) award of Britain". The Order of the British Empire is the commonest British Order of Chivalry, but it has five grades. We have always held that the three highest grades (GBE, KBE/DBE, CBE) are sufficient for notability, whereas the two lower grades (OBE, MBE), to which the vast majority of those honoured are appointed, are not. Although the Order of the British Empire is the most junior order overall, Knights and Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire outrank anyone except knights and dames of other orders, including members of other orders who hold honours below knighthood/damehood. They even outrank knights bachelor, which most British knights are. Knighthood/damehood (in all orders, not just the Order of the British Empire) is only conferred on about sixty people every year - if she's notable enough for the United Kingdom (a country of 60 million people) to give her such a high and rare award then she's easily notable enough for a Wikipedia article. "There is no evidence of any notability at all"? I really cannot believe someone said this about someone honoured with a damehood! What, pray, is notability? Playing a single professional football match? Appearing in a few films? Singing a moderately popular song? All these would get you an article. Or contributing so much to your profession that you were considered worthy of being awarded one of the highest honours your country can give (one of only eight women awarded the DBE in that particular six-monthly honours list)? Unbelievable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To quote from Order of the British Empire: "... is the most junior and most populous order of chivalry in the British and other Commonwealth honours systems." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please reread what I wrote. It really is a good idea to have a proper understanding of the system before you comment on it. And it is complex. Just because an order is more junior than another does not mean all the grades of that order are more junior. Both the seniority of the order and the grade of the honour must be taken into account. A Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire is outranked by a Dame Commander of the other orders, since those orders are more senior, but she outranks a Companion or Commander of the other orders, since those grades are more junior. DBE is the normal honour given to a British woman who has been accorded the equivalent of a knighthood, since Knight Bachelor, the commonest knighthood (and by common, I mean about thirty are awarded every year!), can only be awarded to men. Very few damehoods are awarded in the other orders (maybe half a dozen every year). In addition, note that the other orders are awarded for specific things: the Royal Victorian Order for service to the Royal Family, the Order of St Michael and St George for diplomatic and overseas service, the Order of the Bath for civil and military service. The Order of the British Empire is the only one that can be awarded to anyone. The other orders are basically only more senior because they're older, not because they're awarded to more deserving people. A DBE isn't promoted to a DCB; if a senior civil servant, for instance, gets a damehood she'll get a DCB instead of a DBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I suspect that this confusion might have been avoided if the DBE in the biography had been linked to Order_of_the_British_Empire#Current_awards rather than the head of the article. The way the postnominal template plays out is going to create confusion in any reader uneducated in British awards.--j⚛e decker^talk 22:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but what would be even better is if editors didn't rush to nominate articles for deletion unless they had done a bit of research. It takes work to write an article; it takes no time at all to nominate for deletion someone else's work in a field in which you're unfamiliar. If it's too much trouble to follow links properly and read around the subject (i.e. by scrolling down to the first section in the article) then maybe editors should stop to think whether they should really be nominating for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for the info, Necrothesp. I retracted my statement above. Just keep in mind that most of us are Americans who aren't familiar with British orders of chivalry.
  Still, the article needs serious revision; I would like to see specific, cited evidence of how she's contributed to education ("Dame Yasmin Bevan has been an influential figure within the UK education system having contributed to policy development through the Expert Group on Assessment and the Practitioners Group on School Behaviour and Attendance," is non-referenced and vague, and the rest of the document is a list of awards). Gdfusion (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just bear in mind that anyone with the title of Sir or Dame has definitely done something very significant to earn it. Unless they're a baronet! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While WP:BIO does not mention titles, I did find this discussion on the talk page for WP:BIO, from which a consensus emerged that an MBE/DBE in itself does not automatically satisfy notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're getting confused between two entirely different things. An MBE is the lowest grade of the Order of the British Empire. Thousands are awarded every year. I would entirely agree that it doesn't confer notability and have argued such many times. That's what that discussion is about. A DBE is the second highest grade of the order. No more than a couple of dozen are awarded every year. Unlike an MBE, it gives the recipient a pretitle (Dame) that they use for the rest of their lives. That definitely does confer notability. The two things are not the same. In fact, they're nowhere near the same. WP:ANYBIO does state that notability is likely to be conferred when someone has "received a well-known and significant award or honor". A damehood certainly counts as this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the person in question, nor do I have any strong opinion either way about her notability or whether the article should be kept or deleted. But to clarify, although the Order of the British Empire is the most junior British order, that doesn't mean that the most senior members (GBE: Knights and Dames Grand Cross) rank below the most junior members in the next order up (MVO: members of the Royal Victorian Order). Instead, the various degrees of the different orders are interlaced in a slightly more complicated way. In the United Kingdom order of precedence (in particular see the section on baronets and knights), a DBE or KBE ranks just below a DCVO or KCVO, and just above a CB. In the 2014 Birthday Honours list, only nine UK citizens were appointed DBE, so it's a fairly exclusive club, and I think we should therefore regard it as reasonable supporting evidence of notability. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Surely the fact that this person is a dame and is in this list List_of_Dames_Commander_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire is enough to confer notability. The nominator is obviously not from Britain as they do not have a good understanding of the honours system. This person certainly has a greater honour than just an OBE bestowed upon her as the nominator has suggested. Seasider91 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a Dame or Knight is notable and hardly a most junior (and numerous) award. Clearly the article needs work but that is not grounds for seeking deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not know of this woman, but I also do not know of most of the people with articles in WP. She is a Dame, that should make her notable enough for a Wikipedia page in her own right. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. Nominator should please familirisae himself with the British honours system, and not nominate with such needless aggression which seems borderline abusive. MBE is the lowest award from the Order of the British Empire; DBE is the second highest. FFS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DBE. Xxanthippe (talk).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 16:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mulvey Park[edit]

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

Seems to be an estate of only local interest. Also, no sources and orphaned. Gdfusion (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notabilty in its own right and there's nothing that could be merged into the Dundrum article. Some housing estates can reach notability for various reasons in their own right, but this one is too small. There would be dozens of similar estates in this area alone. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, just a housing estate. Snappy (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Non notable housing estate. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:14, 25 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.