Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 June 27 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Redstar[edit]

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

Seems to not be notable enough to pass WP:FRIND requirements. One source, a credulous one, documents this "phenomenon" and it has not garnered outside notice, apparently. jps (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Move Content to Another Article Given that this occurred back in the 1970s, it's not surprising that there aren't a lot of online sources. What we really need is for someone to visit a Canadian library and check for printed sources. I don't think that anyone's done that. In any case, Canada.com lists this as one the 10 strangest Canadian cases of the past century[4] so I believe that this warrants inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, whether that is a standalone article, coverage in another article, or both, I'm open to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe the The Canada.com article gives enough for a standalone article in that the content is a review of Rutkowski's book (noted above) and the mention of this UFO sighting is a two sentence blurb. Possibly a good argument for the redirect, though. Location (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the important thing from my perspective is that we don't lose the content. If it's redirected to another article that also covers Charlie Redstar, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not impossible to source events that happened before the Internet was popular. Most of history happened before the Internet, but that hasn't stopped us from writing articles about these events. I'm not really very sympathetic to his argument. You'd think that World War I would be impossible to describe, as it happened before television, radio, and the Internet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're comparing World War I, one of the most epic events in all of history, with a perhaps minor UFO sighting as if they're supposed to get equal coverage in online sources? You can't possibly be serious. The lack of online sources is exactly what I would expect of a topic of this nature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are actually quite a few online "sources" that can be located discussing this topic. What there is a lack of are reliable sources and there is essentially nothing that I can locate which rises to the independent sourcing standard that we would need to write an article on this subject. Incidentally, News of the Weird is specifically not considered to be reliable, and that's as far as we've got with that Edmonton Journal story. jps (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't dispute that there are not enough online reliable sources to support the contention that this article's topic meets GNG but that's exactly what should be expected from a topic of this article's nature and time period. Absence of online evidence is not evidence of absence, certainly not forty years later. I'm not saying that this topic deserves a standalone article nor am I saying that it does. What I am saying is that what we need is for someone go to and check Canadian libraries for print sources. Apparently, nobody has done so. Until someone is willing to put in the time and research to truly evaluate this topic's notability, we should follow WP:BRD. The burden to change consensus is on those who favor the change. By default, this article should remain unchanged until that burden of proof is met. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do you say no one checked? [5] It's actually fairly easy these days to do so. jps (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ummmm...so when I ask if anyone's actually visited a Canadian library and checked for print sources, your response is to refer to an online search engine? Seriously? Do you know for a fact that all printed reliable sources have been scanned, indexed and are searchable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do you understand how catalogs at libraries work? Do you understand that they catalog print sources? jps (talk) 18:59, 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 delete. Secret account 19:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STL Interactive[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable studio. None of the games have articles, and there is not substantial third-party coverage. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage (though there is apparently a St. Louis tech event that uses this name).Dialectric (talk) 08:40, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne Theatre Stage School[edit]

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

Zero sources. Written in an overtly promotional tone (it sometimes even uses the first person!). Generally reads like an advert. It Is Me Here t / c 22:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Express Coach routes[edit]

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

Hugely long and outdated list with barely any sources, Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:LISTCRUFT (The page is already over 150kb and I believe there's no way of splitting this up ?, Plus sourcing this would also be virtually impossible due to the page size), –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm honest I was in 2 minds whether to nominate or not, I'm also extremely surprised at how much you've just removed :). –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt, nominate because AfDs can always be withdrawn, and you can use my essay as an excuse. As to the removal, I removed one section, in terms of bytes about an eighth of the page?--Launchballer 23:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true, Haha thanks for the essay :), I'm extremely surprised you managed it!, Felt like a lifetime waiting just to nominate it! lol –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete blatant WP:NOTDIR. trying to replicate a website. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 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 deckertalk 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Harris (singer)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Article created by Jeffharris10. Launchballer 21:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Talk:Jeff Harris (singer)): "DeleteI suspected the creator of the article Jeff Harris(singer) of blatant COI because his username is the same name with the page he created.(Wikicology (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC))"[reply]
  • Delete - The only available sources that I can find for this person are a few closely connected sources. Apparently fails WP:MUSICBIO.- MrX 22:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sourcing in the article consist of military publications writing about him as he visited military bases to perform, and a single article in a local paper. Insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability issue. Weak references cited reinforcing that issue. + Possible conflict of interest. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination — Ascii002 Let's talk! 13:09, 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) 13:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Those about to Rap'e[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable music recording. Fails WP:NALBUMS. - MrX 21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete–I would say "redirect" to "Mentors (band) @ Discography", but the article has no references. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: As this seems to be a tribute-album, a redirect to the afforementioned location would not be appropriate. Straight delete. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two songs by the Mentors on the album, so I think if references can be found, then keep; if not, delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:29, 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 Keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect[edit]

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

Violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:ONEEVENT issues. Back in the climate dustups of 2009, people were convinced this was a notable term. It is not. It is not used as a universal term and is basically a WP:NEOLOGISM as employed by various advocacy groups, sometimes meaning starkly different things. We're not urban dictionary, and WP:IINFO certainly should apply here. I call shenanigans and ask for a removal of this article which is an artifact to Wikipedia controversies (WP:ARBCC) more than anything else. jps (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, this is actually the fifth time this article has been nominated for deletion, the links are on the talk page, the last one was a keep. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I hadn't seen this, but I did and feel compelled to vote. Delete after much consideration. Yes, it's unquestionably reliably sourced.... to a bunch of fluff pieces. Only one of which is really about the Gore effect (Politico). Everything else uses that word, but ascribes different meaning to it. Mostly it's just used as a proto-clickbait headline for anything about Al Gore. As such, combining it all together doesn't really make sense. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as before. This isn't a coherent topic - it's cobbled together from a number of different articles about different things that happen to use the same phrase. It's classic WP:SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify my statement about SYNTH, the article opens by saying "The Gore Effect is a term used with various meanings..." We don't write articles about phrases used in a variety of different ways. We don't cobble together disparate bits of unrelated information. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this seems to be a coatrack attempting to give "equal validity" to a fringe meme, strung together from a combination of commentary in questionable sources, some mainstream discussion giving passing mention of fringe views. and some discussion of unrelated topics using the same phrase. . . dave souza, talk 05:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it is no base for deletion. The use of "Gore effect" as in scientific ("serious") circumstances, as in the past for Gores effect on green investments (or with Clive Palmers helping carbon-dusted-hand nowadays) makes clear that there is interest to convert the meme into something more Gore-friendly, but without much success. There are much more (international) references as the RfD suggests AND there is ongoing interest AND use of that meme till today. Its a slur, sure, but one valid mentioning and explaining. Its a Cute Cat and insofar relevant, recent sources just have been added. I expect wikipedia to do its duty on that. Serten (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I made a minor change to the lead with the aim to place the use the term in a historical context but the change was undone without explanation. I think it is fair to say that a certain term was used historically with a number of potential meanings. Gregkaye (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was flat out SYNTH, as is the whole of the current article. Keep !Votes really need to address the SYNTH issue. I was originally leaning towards voting keep, but after looking at the various sources I could not overcome the synth argument in my mind. (and also the failing of GNG... only one reliable source about the gore effect the rest just use it in the headline for whatever, hence how most of the article is SYNTH as our article interprets what the source authors meant it to mean.) I'd be persuaded to vote keep IF someone could find an article with an overview and discussion of the evolution of the meaning of "Gore effect." Instead, our current article infers the evolution of the term which as I've said it blatant SYNTH. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Synth is a weak form of OR, SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all and does not apply here. It would if somebody constructed the article from Gores speech assignations and related those to local weather reports. Thats not the case with any of the sources in question. The fact that some of the sources mention and refer to the Gore effect in titles, as defined otherwise, is an indication of notability, not the contrary as purported. Furthermore the alleged lack of "notable sources" leave out e.g. the small chapter about the effect in the quite successful book of Daniel Rettig et al (Rettig is senior editor at Wirtschaftswoche) and as well the Article of Harald Martenstein. Not counting the Germans in does neither work in WP nor in the FIFA world cup. Serten (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an excellent example of a topic that belongs in an encyclopedia. Many, many articles use the term, but many of the articles use the term with a limited explanation of the term, apparently assuming that the reader knows the term. An interested reader is likely to turn to Wikipedia to see more about the term. I am unclear why we would want to keep them uninformed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 @ S Philbrick - I just refered to the lack of understanding concerning Tacit knowledge in the WP:OR disk page. [6] which applies here as well. Serten (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phrase has proven worthy of discussion in secondary reliable sources over a span of years; there is enough material there for the topic to easily meet WP:GNG. The phrase has progressed beyond a neologism to part of the culture of the climate debates and the sources already in the article show there is enough discussion to form a reasonable short article on the topic. I don't see a lot of synth in the article. Summarizing and giving examples of secondary sources' interpretation and reception of the phrase is what we should be doing. If there is material that does synthesize a new assertion, then it should be removed--but this is a simple matter of editing, not deletion. A notable topic and a modest article without major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ONEEVENT is completely meaningless here. There is nor was just a single event in question, but a multitude of similar events being summarized under the term and mentioned in the sources. Maybe the german WP did have less a problem with the term (it was RFDed once but never deleted), since seemingly unrelated but "meaningful" series of coincidences have been - in German - scholarly described by C.G.Jung under the term Synchronicity (a famous predecessor of the effect in question see Pauli effect). I personally assume that these sorts of Tacit knowledge play a major role in WP, but are completely ignored by the official set of rules. I agree with some of the issues raised about the intro and have corrected these. The main meaning is the antigorean slur / the webmeme, not any praise about Gores positive impact on humanity via green investment activities. Serten (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) PS.:[reply]
  • Keep Being a neologism is not a reason to delete. In fact, we have an entire Category:Political neologisms devoted to neologisms. The only thing that really matters here is whether the topic meets the WP:GNG guidelines. Given that the article cites 17 different reliable sources, I think it's obvious that it does. And if not, here are a few more sources that the article doesn't currently cite.[7][8][9][10][11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on - lighten up - it's funny. Could be cited as a good example of Murphy's Law. More examples needed.Fenton Robb (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I !voted for Merge last time, but the article has been improved enough to just about tip it over the line. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is notable and the article well-sourced. Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 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 Redirect PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Things Give You Away[edit]

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

Skylar3214 believes this song should not have an article for the following reason: "It is not a single, neither it has been charted in all territories." I am starting this AfD as she does not seem to understand the phrase "Passes WP:GNG. Go to WP:AFD" and I do not want an edit war. (If it isn't already obvious, I say keep per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO#C1.) Launchballer 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a guy, not a girl. And no, two users and I think that it's unnecessary for you to have an article about "The Little Things Give You Away". It will stay redirected, and that's my final decision. User:Skylar3214 2:17, 26 June 2014
It's not your decision to make. The decision is up to consensus. I'm not reverting your redirection because that would be edit warring. Okay, having seen the talk page, I am, because you are incredibly mistaken. I am going to revert and I am going to WP:RFPP.--Launchballer 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who talked about this. Tell that to the two users on its talk page. And yes, you keep reverting my edits, and you don't tell me that it's not my decision to make. Let me make my own decisions, you don't make 'em for me. It will be deleted by another user, if you keep this up with your actions towards me. User:Skylar3214 3:09, 26 June 2014
Neither of those two editors are here any more, because the discussion was seven years ago, and they were discussing a different state of the article which was quite rightly deleted. WP:Consensus can change. I'm going up to bed now and whatever happens while I'm asleep happens. Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Yoninah and 97198, you all participated in the DYK nomination - your thoughts are welcome.--Launchballer 22:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about what you say. It will be deleted by somebody else, and that's final! Now, this is the final straw, thanks to you and your smart mouth. User:Skylar3214 3:36, 26 June 2014

  • Comment@Skylar, it is not up to you whether this article is deleted or redirected. It is a matter for community consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)
THANK you! He thinks a consensus formed seven years ago and discussing a different article still stands.--Launchballer 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge/Redirect - Fails the WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS. It doesn't have significant coverage, it just has some random statements cherry-picked out of some album views. Some of the reviews aren't even reliable, like the Sputnik a Music one, which is user-generated and fails WP:SPS. Is be okay with a redirect, but realistically, if it hasn't met the GNG in the last 7 years, I'm not sure how it's ever going to happen for this random, non-single track. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in passing on AllFail, as I would expect, but singled out, if you excuse the phrase, in Rolling Stone. I have seen worse coverage for albums, kept, and this is only a single. Who cares about the Sputnik coverage, that is only required to verify the statements; Rolling Stone provides the notability.
  • Someone in authority do to Skylar whatever it is authority does to noobish brats that need a spanking. Ok, that was not 100% helpful. Let me try again. Skylar, "you are not the boss of me" is not a statement you or anyone else will ever need to make on Wikipedia, because people either use rules and rationales to back up their statements, or you do not have to listen to them. You are free to decide which, but if you decide wrongly, as you have here, you will find yourself ignored instead. Anarchangel (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stones only has a single sentence of the song. That's pretty much the definition of a passing mention, not significant coverage. The rest of your argument falls I to WP:OTHERSTUFF territory, and AFD is not the place for grievances on editors. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "(1) On Minutes to Midnight, co-produced by Rick Rubin, Linkin Park are more of something else — topical — and furiously good at it. (2) In the last song, 'The Little Things Give You Away,' the band coolly torpedoes George W. Bush's petty, disastrous arrogance on Iraq and New Orleans (for starters), building from acoustic strum and soft-shoe electronics to magisterial Seventies-arena guitar and lacerating disgust. (3) 'All you've ever wanted was someone to truly look up to you,' Chester Bennington sings. (4) 'And six feet underwater/I do.'"
      • That's four sentences, in which they use the song to define the album and the current trajectory of the band's career (the preceding sentences lead up to this one, talking about the previous sound the band was getting, but I did not want to be greedy and count those opening sentences as pertaining to the song directly). And they quote the song. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. That is not "four sentences of coverage". I numbered the sentences above. Sentence one is obviously about the album in general, not the song. Sentence 3 and 4 are literally direct quotes of the songs lyrics, and nothing else. To claim that consistutes as significant coverage, or "four sentences about the song", is absolutely crap. Direct quoting lyrics, and generalizations about the entire album, doesnot count as significant, third pary commentary on the song. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The key word in the first sentence is "topical", which relates to the content of the song. And the third and fourth sentences are indeed direct quotes of the song, as I said. It is your assertion, and nothing else, that that does not constitute significant coverage. It is my assertion that the journalist felt the song lyrics made a point better (more succinctly, perhaps) than they could themselves. Similar to the way that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, the GNG does not allow for direct quotes of lyrics to count as third party coverage. It's not third party by definition. Outside of that, you're left with one sentence about the song, and one about the album as a whole. Say what you will about subjectivity, precedent does not back such a scenario as significant coverage. The article is very short. What little is there can easily be integrated into the album article, if it's not already there to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any significant coverage here, nothing that passes WP:NSONG (such as significant charting). Яehevkor ✉ 08:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album. I fail to see the significant coverage about this song that would establish independent notability. Arguing the number of sentences in the Rolling Stone article is pointless as regardless of whether it is 1 or 4 sentences, it is still a passing mention (i.e. not significant coverage) about the song that is contained within a review of the album. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I bothered is that I've seen people successfully argue that a paragraph could be used towards it being significant coverage, but never a mere sentence. Wanted to make sure the source wasn't being misrepresented. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still agree that this article will be redirected or deleted in any case, and therefore, I will not argue about this with anybody else anymore. What's done is done. User:Skylar3214 5:17, 28 June 2014
It helps the closing Admin if you add a bolded "Redirect" somewhere in the statement, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. User:Skylar3214 7:44, 28 June 2014
Thank you! A good ol' redirect or delete will hopefully clear things up. User:Skylar3214 12:26, 29 June 2014
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Keith Ashwin[edit]

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

An inventor. References only contain mention of his patents or his product. No references given talk about him. Unable to find reliable references about him, only some social media and his products/patents. Bgwhite (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but I don't see sufficient, significant, independent, secondary sources here. The article shows that Ashwin has some patents and some products that won awards, but the article doesn't have any authority that tells us the significance of that work.
I am also concerned about WP:COI: Going to Ashwin's webpage lists several products; the most recent product is U+Link developed in 2014. Talk:Radio-frequency identification#Active RFID shows primary author is associated with [[12]]; that website sells U+Link.
The Radio-frequency identification page was recently edited to credit Ashwin with the invention of active RFID; it used essentially the same material as here: linking to patents and awards with unclear stature and no explanation. I have reverted those edits.
WP editors may use primary sources such as patents for details, but looking at a patent and inferring its importance is WP:OR or WP:SYN. Some of the innovative details, such as the use of a magnetic switch, do not seem significant; RFID is not using magnetic switches today. No secondary source is telling us the magnetic switch was important.
An award must have stature to convey notablity (e.g., an Emmy or an Oscar or a listing on the NYSE). One of the awards was for best new product at a convention in Las Vegas. It is not clear how big the contest field was.
The Net Insider on youtube is half an hour long, it is posted by Eureka Technology, and it had a total of 8 views when I opened it. It looks more like an advertising video about a product to secure a PC: Link It Orbiter/Wavetrend. It locks a laptop up unless the RFID is nearby. I stopped watching after a few minutes. It's not clear to me that Net Insider is an independent program; it might be an infomercial.
The claim to who invented active RFID may be an open question. Cardullo made such a claim in an article that he himself wrote. The big difference is that RFID Journal printed Cardullo's claim, so the editors presumably found his claim credible. Cardullo's claim is also repeated in books.[13] (Ashwin is not mentioned at all in that book.) The authors of those books presumably consider the claim credible. I found no similar sources crediting Ashwin with the invention of active RFID. Even Ashwin's webpage only claims generation 1 in 1978, which is six years after Cardullo's patent.
Given the amount of material about RFID, I'd expect it would be easy to find secondary sources covering the history of RFID. If Ashwin is mentioned there, then that would merit an article about him. WP cannot, however, do its own research and label Ashwin's inventions significant.
Glrx (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ashwin has developed eighty products over a 35 year period. The author has access to a number of published and independent test results that are not currently on the internet but plan to add these content to make a number of claims that will make Terrence Keith Ashwin even more notable. Of these inventions there are a number that can prove that he either invented the product or was of the first in the world to work on the technology. Ashwin has inventions that is still not commercially available today but was implemented and tested with full independent reports. The author is new on WP and wanted to start small before and go through the acceptance process before he attempts to add more content with some not even available on the internet at this stage.
The WP:COI: is not relevant as the author has no interest in any of the businesses that still promote any of the mentioned products or technology. This is also true for Ashwin. The Link-IT product is still in the market today and is called Wavetrend. Ashwin is not mentioned as the inventor of Wavetrend and the intention was not to mention current products on the market today. Therefore the Wavetrend references was not used. U+Link however is a brand new next generation modular RF product that make sensor and device data available to the Internet of Things. This was also not mentioned on the page. The author is of opinion that the information on WP would be inaccurate and incomplete without mentioning this inventor. To claim that Ashwin cannot be mentioned as the inventor of a specific technology is the same as claiming that an inventor like Bill Gates can't be noted as he is still in business selling the next generations of his inventions. According to the comment above by user: Glrx Talk:Radio-frequency identification#Active RFID shows primary author is associated with [[14]]; that website sells U+Link. The author is transparent and use his real name and email address instead of a pseudo name to hide behind. Neither this article nor Talk:Radio-frequency identification#Active RFID has anything to do with U+Link.
The author of Radio-frequency identification page seem to not have a technology background as there is a significant difference between ACTIVE and PASSIVE RFID. The term RFID is not trademarked or owned by any inventor and is a generic industry term used to describe products that use RF (Radio Frequency) to transmit an Identification. The author of Radio-frequency identification reverted edits that contribute to the accuracy of a very inaccurate page where RFID in all its forms are discussed without keeping a clear distinction between the the various forms of RFID. This in my opinion creates the impression that all technology classified under this industry terminology is the same which is factually not true.
WP editors may use primary sources such as patents for details. Patents provide very accurate detail about the invention and is a reliable source to substantiate that active identification technology in this case was actually invented by Terrence Keith Ashwin and thus rule out WP:OR. The patents describe how this technology works and for a reader with technical ability it would differentiate this technology from passive RFID. Active identification technology or in short Active RFID do use magnetic switches to be programmed. Wavetrend is still one of the top selling Active RFID products globally and use a magnetic switch to be programmed and thus rule out WP:SYN as it was part of the core technology design. Finding a secondary source to verify the importance of the magnetic switch is not necessary as you can buy the product today with the magnetic switch. This was however part of the original design of this technology and therefore significant.
The author provided a reference to the official site of the SIA New Product Showcase that describes the criteria and the credence of the Security Industry's Finest New Product Showcase Award. The claim that it has no stature to convey notability is an opinion and not necessarily relevant.
The Net Insider on YouTube is half an hour long, and was specifically loaded by the author to provide an extra third party reference. In the video (9:40 minutes) Jeff Jarvis, VP Business Development of Access Corporation, USA, states "That it is new technology" and "It is the best I've seen for electronic commerce in the near term". (25:10 minutes) Don Small, VP Marketing and Business Development, HID Corporation, Irvine, California, Leaders in the Passive RFID world, provides an explanation about the difference between active and passive RFID and why HID is interested in the technology. The author uploaded the video under his Eureka Technology ID and is transparent about it. Net Insider is as far as the author could establish an independent facilitator obtaining a objective view using a panel discussion with company representatives and independent experts.
The USA, UK, South African and Australian Patent Offices among others granted patents for this invention. Each Patent Office does an independent search of similar inventions. Patents are only granted once the applicant can to the satisfaction of the Patent Office provide evidence to show that the invention is substantially different to anything that currently exist. A patent is therefore not WP:OR a original claim as it is verified, scrutinised and researched by the Patent Office. In this case a number of key markets globally. RFID is not trademarked as mentioned above and is a generic industry term describing radio frequency identification technology. The author of Radio-frequency identification page correctly claims that Cardullo invented what is known as modern RFID. The patent however as summarised (http://www.google.com/patents/US3713148) describes PASSIVE RFID "A novel transponder apparatus and system is disclosed, the system being of the general type wherein a base station transmits an "interrogation" signal to a remote transponder, the transponder responding with an "answerback" transmission. The transponder includes a changeable or writable memory, and means responsive to the transmitted interrogation signal for processing the signal and for selectively writing data into or reading data out from the memory. The transponder then transmits an answerback signal from the data read-out from its internal memory, which signal may be interpreted at the base station. In the preferred inventive embodiment, the transponder generates its own operating power from the transmitted interrogation signal, such that the transponder apparatus is self-contained." The author of this page claims with sufficient supporting evidence that Terrence Keith Ashwin invented the first battery operated identification system known as ACTIVE RFID using the generic industry terminology. The core technology is significantly different and therefore two separate inventions. Ashwin, as per the patent legal activities section on his patents, assigned these patents to Wavetrend. Wavetrend launched in the UK without Ashwin (http://www.sourcewire.com/news/10881/wavetrend-uk-ltd-unveils-its-unique-wireless-identification-technology-globally#.U7R6yPmSySo). The RFID Journal has referenced Wavetrend or published articles on Wavetrend in excess of a 130 times to date. The most significant being a Wavetrend paper delivered at the RFID Journal Live Conference in May 2006 (http://www.rfidjournalevents.com/live2006/PDF/WedBO_Bishop.pdf) where Wavetrend is introduced as the leaders in Active RFID technology. Articles on Wavetrend has been featured in the RFID Journal since 2002 (http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?222).
The information provided is significant and makes Ashwin notable under WP:BIO as a creative professional. South Africa is a small market and by the time Wavetrend was launched in the international market the product was already sufficiently divorced from its inventor to the extent that the inventor was not even mentioned. This in the authors opinion does not make Ashwin less notable. gcmbotha (gcmbotha) 11:18, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Bilbray[edit]

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

This page fails WP:POLITICIAN. She is a candidate who has never held elective office. She is not notable outside of her current campaign. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. According to the Washington Times, "Her race against second-term congressman [Joe] Heck promises to be one of the most-watched in the country."[15] I would be happy to work on this article a little - I like to work on articles about women. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I spent the afternoon improving the article, including getting a photo for her infobox. FWIW. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or REDIRECT) - Per WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected politician running for office. Coverage about the election is abundant, however that does not establish her as notable. It's run of the mill election coverage. What is needed are sources covering her for her other accomplishments whatever that might be. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a glance at the article show 4 references for other things that she did. So those 'other accomplishments whatever they may be' are in the article with citations. What exactly are you looking for since I was going to add citations, but found them present. Or did the updates since your post cover your objection? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of the coverage is election coverage. As typical with election coverage, there is background information provided about candidates contesting the election. What would sway me would be coverage about Bilbray that was written because of her other activities independent of election coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's standard practice to redirect a candidate page such as this to the relevant main election page, which in this case would be United States House of Representatives election in Nevada, 2014. "Other things" the candidate has done have only been covered by the media because of, and in the context of, her campaign, which means the article fails WP:POLITICIAN because the article's subject hasn't received significant media coverage independent of a campaign for office. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to the election per nominator. Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates — if you cannot make a credible case that she was already notable enough for an article before she became a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the election. No matter how significant her prior work may seem, it doesn't get her over the bar if it can only be sourced to background information in the coverage of the election campaign — it would need to be sourced to references which demonstrate that she was garnering coverage for that work at the time it was happening, or else it still fails our notability tests. Simple assertions that the race is likely to be widely watched do not make her more notable than other unelected candidates, either — and neither, for that matter, do advance predictions about how likely her victory is or isn't. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but coverage that exists only in the context of an election campaign just makes her a WP:BLP1E as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • References and more material were added from before the election cycle, some going back several years. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And exactly none of it supporting any credible reason why she would actually warrant an article in an encyclopedia if she weren't also a congressional candidate. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected politician who never held office.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 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 delete. More than two weeks, and still no one's willing to argue for the article's retention. Deor (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness UK[edit]

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

Mostly self-referenced or unsourced, basically promotional. None of the sources cited give the charity itself any significant coverage, and I can't find any elsewhere. The fact that the founder appears frequently on TV talking about kindness goes to his notability, not that of this organization. Revent (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Considering the creator/main editor has been blocked for "hoaxes" and that this AfD is unanimous, I think a case could be made for CSD'ing as a hoax... so I'll close this AfD as Snow deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Luxembourg[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. I don't have to the two sources but searching on google for some of the aspects of the story come up completely empty. There is no mention of a Roberto Mendeleev, the Supplicant Revolution, or Hansel the Terrible in google. The final two sentences really push this to be a hoax, I can not understand how politics can trigger a sponge migration. GB fan 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is bad hoax, not even has some humour. The Principality of San Marino was much better. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the article two months ago, and in the last few days a few pranksters came and added the crap about sponge migrations etc. I've removed what they added. The original paragraph is factually accurate, and is not a hoax. Thanks --Bananaman321 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - The article meets all of Wikipedias notability guidelines and is verifiable. It is perfectly acceptable, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, to not use English language sources. None of this article's detractors have actually checked the articles sources, but have only argued for deletion on the basis of the sources being in non-English languages and difficult to verify online, which are not reasons for deletion in accordance with Wiki policy. Additionally, this deletion proposal was made because of hoax material added by vandals, which has since been removed. Therefore I strongly urge that we keep this article until the sources in the article are checked. If they are found inadequate I will happily support deletion. Thanks. --Bananaman321 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Henry VII was a Holy Roman Emperor, the first in the House of Luxembourg, and even there I don't see a "declaration of the Empire of Luxembourg". The closest thing that I can find that is not a hotel called the Empire of Luxembourg is the Luxembourg Empire Tiara, which does exist. Funny as it sounds, the Tiara does not have a WP article although it has references and seems notable to me. This article fails WP:V and WP:RS and is possibly a hoax. - Pmedema (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, the article references Henry V, not Henry VII, so I fail to see why this is relevant here, and secondly, the article mentions no "declaration of the Empire of Luxembourg". I do not understand why you are criticizing this article for things which it does not claim to contain. Also, the hotel. Let's just get this out of the way, the hotel debate is irrelevent here, so this isn't against your comments, but just saying for everyone after me, it is clear that the hotel is in no way tied to this article, nor could one have heard of the hotel and derive the content here from that. Also, I personally have never heard of this hotel, and it seems it would be a rather obscure thing to base a hoax article off of, since that is what you are claiming this article to be. Also, who, as a hoax, makes a historical page about Luxembourg? Let me answer, no one. I've seen plenty and plenty of Wikipedia hoaxes and vandalism, and this simply doesn't fit the profile. Sure it might have obscure references, but have you read them? I assume not. I believe that this article out to be revised to be more verifiable, but deletion is not the answer in this case. --Loganrobert96 (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JSTOR has nothing. I would read the cited sources if they were in English and available to me, but alas. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have blocked Loganrobert96 (talk · contribs) as a vandalism-only account, plus an IP that was apparently his. I suspect Bananaman321 and he are an attempted good-hand/bad-hand pair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I agree. EditShark32, Bananaman321, Loganrobert96 ... --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While I am no expert, the whole thing reads like rubbish. Bulgaria was far toofar away to have ingervened in Germany. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's bullshit. Whoever wrote this threw some names and facts together from about the same time period, but nothing here matches anything of known history. Complete bullshit. --Jayron32 03:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's no online evidence at all to support this, not even in JSTOR, then it's a hoax. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't my specialism, but that's just not the way empires in Europe worked in those days. There was one Empire - the one which was becoming known as the Holy Roman Empire. (There was the Eastern Empire too; but they were for some purposes treated as both being contested claims to the Roman Empire.) The age of nation-states kicking off their own empires was many centuries in the future. This is a crafty, but ill-thought-out, hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - other places were called "empires" - Bulgaria for example, also the king of Spain (or of various Spanish kingdoms) sometimes claimed to be an emperor; it's not impossible that this guy called himself an emperor too, but it's unlikely. Also, as mentioned, even if the Germans allied with the Bulgarians, that doesn't mean the Bulgarian tsar himself could have showed up in Luxembourg (especially not this particular tsar who was a bit busy at home). I can see how the two sources listed in the article could have been misunderstood...but like everyone else I have no access to them either (but I would happily read them for you, if I could find them). In any case, even if this was a real thing, is an extremely short-lived claim to an empire worthy of its own article? It could simply be mentioned in Henry V's article if it turns out to be real. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The standard source on the history of the Holy Roman Empire "Regesta Imperii" does not mention any of the claimed events, see Regesta Imperii for the year 1256. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Heinrich V., Graf von Luxemburg-Ligny in ADB. It is possible that this is an honest misunderstanding, since Henry did invade his neighbour in 1256. It might just be that the cited source calls this an effort to build an "empire". I doubt it (because of the Bulgarian nonsense), but it is possible. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 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 merge to University of Wisconsin–River Falls. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin–River Falls Falcons women's ice hockey[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A primary coverage only. Minor college team. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article topic is valid, encyclopedic, and verifiable. Dolovis (talk) 17:47, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syedna Burhanuddin[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub that's remained this way since 2005. Also seems to be a duplicate of Mohammed Burhanuddin and if not, needs be moved to a more appropriate name. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unsourced OR. If, as the original author claims, it is true that it's best to avoid referring to any individual by this name then I can't even see a redirect to Da'i al-Mutlaq. Just delete this as a pointless page with no proof of notability or even accuracy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 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 speedy delete. WP:G11 slakr\ talk / 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Sitaramdas Omkarnath[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Article is so far from a neutral point of view that it would need a full rewrite to become a proper article. Citations are messy enough that trimming down to the bare facts is a non-trivial undertaking. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, what is the deletion rationale? (Nuke is not a rationale in itself) --Soman (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 17:04, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tobuscus Adventures: Wizards![edit]

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

Unremarkable game, almost all sources are primary (e.g. Youtube videos, Indiegogo pages trying to raise money, or press releases). Jinkinson talk to me 13:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:30, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 17:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Youtube videos and press releases do not represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources. My own search found an abundance of these types of links but not coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Audience, what? what!? What are you doing starting an AfD about Tobuscus Adventures? Intro of darkness then redness then whiteness! Seriously though. Meets the criteria one would expect from a notable YouTubers game. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what WP-policy-based criteria would that be?Dialectric (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or redirect to Toby Turner; a planned video game that has not been released typically should not have an article WP:CRYSTAL. All of the sourcing covers the developer and his fundraising campaign, and there is no indication the game is notable independent of the developer.Dialectric (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom and Whpq. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premsai Patel[edit]

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

One of many unverified non-notable Longevity claims. Any information that can be salvaged already exists in the longevity claims article. PROD removed by User: 71.10.107.90 with no explanation. I believe the PROD was in place for more than a week before it was removed. CommanderLinx (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Fails GNG. No indication of significant coverage in multiple independent sources or of ongoing notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 16:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three Kameda brothers[edit]

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

Non-notable family entry. All three members have their own article which essentially duplicates what is entered here. References don't support the trio as a separate entry. This seems to be a very similar situation to a similar AfD debate for the Roach brothers. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator, that while the three individuals are notable enough to justify their own articles, there is no obvious reason to simply duplicate the details in a combined article as is being done here. --DAJF (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search found nothing to show the brothers are notable (or referenced) as a group. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 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 deckertalk 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Radcliffe[edit]

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

No indication whatsoever of notability in the article as it stands, nor that I can turn up in a brief search. He is of course mentioned in passing in the various accounts of the life of his entirely notable wife, Mary Ann Radcliffe, but his role as her useless husband can easily be covered there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability; only significance is the wife of a notable person, but that doesn't make him notable. Vacation9 02:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any need information can be included in biography of his wife.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 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 nominator lists a clear policy-based reason for the disambiguation. The discussion shows that the issues raised supporting keeping of this article may be trivially solved in ways that are policy-based. I'll delete this page, and leave it up to the contributors to this discussion if they'd prefer to create a redirect, a list, or just go eat some pie and get on with their lives. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left-handed (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with one entry, see WP:TWODABS and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. We don't list partial matches. This was prodded but prod removed by User:Andrew Davidson without a reason being given. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Neelix (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Wikipedia ambiguity to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I am not convinced by the nominator's reading of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches - the policy quite clearly allows certain partial title matches on disambiguation pages, basically where a reader might reasonably be expected to be searching on just the partial title, and two of the "See also" entries ("left-handed particle" and left-handed material) seem to meet this, at least to the point where, for each of them, there seem to be other equally-valid completions for the full search term (for instance, "left-handed media" for left-handed material) but where the reader would be able to work out where to go from this page. There may well be equally good ways for serving people searching for "left-handed" in these cases that do not involve keeping this article - but if so, we should make sure they are in place before deleting this article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that someone would type "left-handed" into the search bar when looking for the Negative index metamaterials article. Chirality (physics) is already linked on Handedness (disambiguation). I see no other articles someone might intend when typing "left-handed" into the search bar. Neelix (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chirality (physics) is not already directly linked on Handedness (disambiguation) - but I accept that adding it would be a fairly minor edit. However, I find it quite easy to believe that someone might come across a reference to left-handed materials or media without having any idea that these were types of metamaterials, let alone negative index ones. There might be an acceptable alternative way to deal with this problem, but I currently don't see it. PWilkinson (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could be a good place to form a list of articles about left handed functions, as the "see also" section is attempting to cover. There are plenty of additional articles to add to such a list which will give a user an easier way to find them. Not specifically disambiguation but as with most of our disambiguation pages, we form a list of usages of the term in question. And ultimately with these kinds of pages, aren't we here to help users navigate wikipedia? Trackinfo (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A list article is a good place for lists of things "about" particular functions. Disambiguation pages are not articles, not even list articles. In particular, they do not list partial title matches, but instead help users navigate Wikipedia by disambiguating ambiguous Wikipedia articles. List articles help users navigate by listing topics by subject area. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Trackinfo, the kind of list you describe would not be called "Left-handed (disambiguation)", and would not benefit from the edit history of this page. If you are interested in creating such a list, it would be better to create one at an appropriate title rather than have this page kept so it can be reformulated as that list. Neelix (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it's WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is obvious, thus why it's main results is Handedness, but this specifially refers to many things in multiple fields. LuigiToeness (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What things? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone coming across a book like this or a journal article like this might easily come to us with a search query of "left-handed". Far more plausible search term in that case than Zoo would be for the Baltimore Zoo (the example given in the Partial Title Matches guideline.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Science[edit]

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

Incoherent essay, full of original research. If "integral science" is really more than a crackpot idea, then a new article should be written about it.

Declined PROD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I prodded this, basically as above: I simply could not understand what the article claimed 'integral science' was. I also doubt that the term is used to mean what I think the article is talking about. (And any article that contains the phrase "paradigm shift" should be treated with great suspicion).TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, poor essay with an unclear topic. Hairhorn (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Dyches[edit]

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

BLP with no sources independent of from where he draws his notability (the LDS church). Similar poorly-sourced LDS articles (Lino Alvarez) have been redirected, but the article's creator instited on fighting this rather than accept a bold redirect. pbp 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A member of the top leadership of the LDS church consisting of 106 people. Referencing of biographies of religious leaders often relies on sources published by subsidiaries of those religions. Such sources can be presumed reliable for information about their top leadership, in my judgment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to fight the redirect, but one major policy of Wikipedia is that major changes (such as the deletion or redirection of an article) are done by consensus. By automatically redirecting this article, you violated established Wikipedia policy. I couldn't let that happen. I maintain that all articles about general authorities are relevant. I agree there is no such thing as "temporary notablity," but I believe that all general authorities who have served in the past, as well as all those who are currently serve and may yet serve in the future, are notable because they hold a prominent place in the LDS Church. I believe such notability lasts even after their release (in the case of Second Quorum members) or demise (in the case of all other general authorities). Just because an article only has LDS-related sources is no reason to single it out for deletion. I understand (and even accept) the concerns expressed about GNG, but at the same time wonder why, instead of simply deleting or redirecting these articles, you don't make an effort to improve them. It seems to me that all Wikipedians' time would be better spent in working together to produce article that adhere to all Wikipedia policies than they would by subjecting articles to deletion discussions simply because they don't meet all Wikipedia policies. Again, no one is addressing my concern that it seems that only the articles I have started are being subjected to deletion discussion while other are allowed to remain because they were started by others. To be unfairly thus singled out has to violate some Wikipedia policy, I'm sure. As to my reasons for wanting this article kept, Dyches currently serves as a member of the Central America Area presidency of the Church. This area, along with other South American and African areas, is experiencing substantial growth, and Dyches plays a role in administering to the units that are so growing. Dyches is also a renowned ear, nose and throat surgeon. In this capacity, he has helped thousands, if not miliions, of patients with their ENT issues. His service in the Church has been widespread. These facts alone make him notable. I would probably be less upset if articles about other Second Quorum members that I have not started were submitted for deletion. I have made my case for keeping this article. This will likely be my only comment. Again, I will accept the voice of the consensus, whatever that may mean for this article. In the meantime, I would encourage all editors involved to keep the conversation civil, assume good faith, and not be patronizing or overly critical of someone else's POV. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, This is about the fourth or fifth time I've had to point out to you that it is acceptable to BOLDly merge or redirect content (it is also acceptable for you to revert BOLD merges or redirects). Please familiarize yourself with BRD. And with GNG. I nominate articles for deletion without regard to who created them; some are created by you, some by Johnpacklambert, and others by completely different editors entirely. You created a lot of Second Quorum articles, which are the ones I have nominated for deletion. The manner in which I nominate Second Quorum articles for deletion violates no Wikipedia policy. I nominate these 1-2 a week so you have time to fix them; I believe to be unfixable and have no interest in or obligation to fix them, so I choose not to. It is not sufficient enough to say, "He did X, Y, Z, so he's notable", if he was, he'd have some third-party coverage. pbp 15:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is a major religious leader. The sources here establish this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't, because none of them are reliable, independent sources. As, such, he fails GNG pbp 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Straightforward application of WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NielN's reason. I found no significant independent coverage of the subject, just coverage in Church publications. Per Jgstokes' suggestion that he's a renowned surgeon who has helped thousands or millions of patients, I could find no evidence of this; I turned up only one paper that he co-authored, and no independent RS coverage of his medical renown. Per John Pack Lambert's suggestion that Dyches is a major religious leader, even if he were, guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) do not exempt religious leaders from needing independent coverage to establish notability. Agyle (talk) 18:04, 24 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 deckertalk 14:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no inherent notability inherent in being one of 106 authorities of this particular organization. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. If there's significant coverage in multiple reliable and INDEPENDENT sources, it should be identified. Edison (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not reaching WP:BASIC, which (as I've stated elsewhere, such as the recent WP:ENT#1 conversations) should be, in my view, required for all, or nearly all, BLPs. That having been said, I think the keep here votes approach a concern that may need to be raised more broadly. WP:CLERGY (which is an essay, part of COMMONOUTCOMES) suggests that bishops in the RCC and Orthodox churches are usually found notable. I don't know if that's correct (it might not be), and the parallels are imperfect, of course, and if it is correct, I don't know if it is simply because bishops and GAs receive different amounts of coverage, but if there is an underlying systemic bias issue here, a broader discussion (at NPERSON, the village pump, in an RfC, etc.) might be warranted, as individual AfDs get relatively little participation. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the references in the article are to church publications, which do not meet the definition of reliable, independent sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 21:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brazzabelle[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks reviews, charting, gold. Airplay shown is a single play on a single station and falls well short of national rotation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Coverage is mostly blogs, shops, listings. Only the local 944 magazine appears to be a reliable source but it only has a photo, a short quote and two sentences about her, not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As in the previous AfD for this DJ, I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow   talk 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of teams that went undefeated through a FIFA World Cup final or qualifying tournament[edit]

List of teams that went undefeated through a FIFA World Cup final or qualifying tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator, rationale here. My original PROD rationale was that this article fails WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH - to expand upon that, and to answer a few points raised in the PROD challenge - while a team being undefeated in the group stage of this tournament might get a one-off throwaway piece in the media, the larger topic (which this article deals with) has NOT received "significant coverage" as required by GNG; there are no in-depth articles or books or TV shows about it. Even if we found 100 news articles stating "[country] qualifies from group round of [tournament] undefeated", it would not be enough to satisfy GNG. As for the SYNTH element, what I meant by that is the part which states "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" which is precisely what has been done e.g. using the table format, combining the qualifying tournament data with the final tournament data etc. Overall, I do not feel this topic is notable at all. It might be interesting to some, but that is not good enough. GiantSnowman 11:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely agree with the statements above regarding SYNTH and GNG. As well as these, this stat dump of an article also contravenes WP:NOTSTATS, primarily as a result of its GNG failure. Were there significant reliable sources then this would probably not be a problem, but, as the cumbersome nature of the article title would indicate, there are not. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I stated in my PROD objection, the article was originally called List of teams undefeated in the FIFA World Cup and had a simpler structure and rationale; see this old revision. A reversion to something similar is an alternative to total deletion. jnestorius(talk) 12:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think that is notable either, sorry. GiantSnowman 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a full length documentary in New Zealand, called Undefeated, documenting their undefeated 2010 campaign, which is significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.215.142 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per SYNTH, GNG and NOTSTATS. Eldumpo (talk) 21:24, 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. Consensus is that this list is not useful to anyone in its current form. It can be userfied if someone wants to use it for Mahabharata etc. Shii (tock) 15:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vedic Individuals[edit]

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

A long list of Hindu epic characters, not people from Vedas. Not notable as list. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ermmmm... It's hard for me to evaluate this since I don't know the material closely, but I have to say the presentation is hopeless: it comes across as Hindu fancruft, not a useful index of characters. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails stand-alone list notability as a non-notable topic. Incredibly, someone has taken this mess and self-published it as a book on Amazon - I kid you not.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that lists of characters from Mahabharata and Ramayana would be notable. Maybe create stubs so that this can become a merge decision? 05:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You are right. But How do we split it? The list has no connection. It has Valli, who is never mentioned in the epics and is a tribal deity assimilated in Tamil Hinduism. Sati-Dakshayani is inaccurately identified with Parvati, her rebirth. It has a listing of Ikshvaku dynasty kings from Kusha onwards, which are not included in the Ramayana, but appears in the Puranas. I agree that we should create separate lists of epic characters. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good list of Mahabharata characters in particular would be quite useful, but that's a separate collection. Mangoe (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree, I can start on such lists separately (disregarding this article). Also for Mahabharata I suggest we limit to characters of the central plot. Due to its story in story format, almost all characters in Sanskrit Hindu scriptures may exist in the Mahabharata, the world's longest poem. Even the story of the Ramayana is embedded in the Mahabharata. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Separate lists seems to be the way to go and I'm sorry I can't help - my expertise in this area is rudimentary to say the least. As for this AfD, given the proposed new articles, I can't see an alternative close other than "delete" - "keep in a variant form" is not an available outcome.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:43, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aas Mohammad Khan Abbasi[edit]

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

Contested {{prod blp}}. All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references. This currently has none. Storkk (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Poorly written AUTOBIO so clear COI with no sources. No indication of notability and no significant coverage. Potentially speedy delete under A7 or G11. Cowlibob (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one source is without question controlled by the subject. No even marginally independent claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 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 merge to Nigerian Civil War. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mayrock[edit]

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

Sad, but not otherwise notable; appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT  Ohc ¡digame! 08:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to Nigerian Civil War The protest itself is notable as relating to the whole Biafra mess, and many histories of the conflict mention it, but otherwise as a person reliable sources say almost nothing about him. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Mayrock seems to be well-remembered, but he is notable for this single event & there is not enough to sustain a stand-alone article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Big events make key participants notable and also WP:PERPETRATOR which states "The motivation ... or the execution ... is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role", which applies to Mayrock. Besides, most articles on the List of political self-immolations should be at AfD if a self immolation is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Ochiwar (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that it wasn't that big an event: it's a one or two sentence mention in histories of the conflict. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Self-immolation as an extreme form of protest on behalf of a collective cause is always "that big an event" imo, otherwise we would not have such articles as Roger Allen LaPorte, Norman Morrison, George Winne, Jr., Alice Herz, and most, if not all the articles in Category:Self-immolations in protest of the Eastern Bloc and Category:Suicides by self-immolation. Ochiwar (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy, this ignores that each of these may or may not end up as significant events with much to say about them. My sense of the list that you give is that some of them ought to be merged into the larger lists, and some may not. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the list shows Inherent notability and Precedent in usage Ochiwar (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 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 no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Maltzahn[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. was an unsuccessful state candidate and only a local councillor. her career is unremarkable, yes she published a book but does not meet WP:AUTHOR. use of primary sources, blogs and twitter as references don't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NPOL has a pretty high standard when it comes to notability guidelines, on that alone is grounds for deletion. Also, as the nom indicates, this individual's one book fails WP:NAUTHOR as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Once again a notable person enters and then loses and election and is magically deemed non-notable. Completely outside of the election this noted author has received a great amount of significant coverage from the likes of the Special Broadcasting Service, the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy, and the government Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault Aware[16][17] [18], the latter two of which her and her book ‘’Trafficked’’ received extensive review. All of these make no mention of her political race. That she lost an election is simply a red herring to her notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the third link doesn't appear to work. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
those sources you provide don't do enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. My nomination tries to assess if she meets other notability criteria besides her political career, it is no red herring. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed third link. She easily meets WP:GNG outside of the election and arguably meets WP:AUTHOR as her were work has been citied by multiple notable organizations. --Oakshade (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is rare that publishing one book satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Authors in WP would have published several books. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources listed in the article are nearly all WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that do not confer notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likely why Hobit said "here and in the article."
(The Australian and Herald Sun from the article are not primary. The ones I linked to above aren't primary (unless you count quotes or the interview transcript). The ones Oakshade linked to above aren't primary (at least not as far as I can tell)). --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the article" being exactly the point I was responding to. The article, as written, is referenced almost entirely to her own writing about herself, to the web pages of organizations she's been directly involved in, and to blogspot blogs. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My only point was that by not responding to Hobit's whole statement you knocked down a straw man. Effectively, "No. Part of what you said doesn't actually do the thing you didn't say it did on its own." If he/she had provided the simple qualification of "...those in the article that aren't primary" the response would be moot even though this qualified version is compatible with the original. ...This is turning into more of a tangent and more argumentative than I intended. Not accusing bad faith by any means; I just know that these discussions can easily have cascading effects, especially when preceded by experienced editors. --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, all the sources I supplied are not "primary" ones. --Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, two of the three sources you listed here are primary sources. If a person has been directly involved in an organization, then that organization's own webpage is not a source that demonstrates the notability of her involvement in that organization — coverage in independent sources is. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which two? I see SBS, Institute of Sisters of Mercy, and Australian Institute of Family Studies. If I had to guess I'd assume the latter two, but what am I missing? --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. SBS is real media, obviously, but the other two are the webpages of organizations that she was directly involved with, and thus are primary sources which cannot demonstrate the notability of her work with those organizations. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through her article and the two links, and then googled her name along with each of them and I'm not seeing it. What link am I missing that says she has worked with those associations? --— Rhododendrites talk |  17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: It appears this is close enough that your assertion that they are not independent sources matters. Can you link to the connection she has with them? --— Rhododendrites talk |  06:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually doesn't even matter whether she's directly involved with them in the sense of being a literal member, or indirectly involved with them in the sense of being active on some of the same issues those organizations are, and thereby having directly worked with people who are literal members of the organization — it's still a connection which discounts the independence of the sources. And the added bonus being that the sources in question aren't actual media anyway, and thus wouldn't count as reliable sources even if you could prove that she actually had complete, absolute independence of the organizations and every individual person directly involved in them. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
??? You stated, not supposed, that she's involved with those organizations and so they're not independent and therefore unreliable. Now you're saying it was basically an assumption she was involved, but who cares because they work on the same issues and so therefore she must have worked with some of them. You don't realize how POV that sounds? Can we stick to what the sources say? The "issues" on which they both work is "human rights." More specifically, women's rights and violence against women. Not some fringe science topic or partisan political ideology. That an organization works against human trafficking or sexual violence does not disqualify them as a reliable source to talk about people who also work against human trafficking and sexual violence. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I "stated" nothing differently from what I just restated here. And what disqualifies the organizations as reliable sources, regardless of the topic they work on, is the fact that they are organizations and not media. Being mentioned on the webpage of an organization, related or unrelated, does not constitute media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just notified people who might be able to bring the references up to standard. Please postpone the tally of the deletion vote until after 23 June, to give them a chance to fix the article. Thanks. AlastairIrvine (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
be careful that when you contact others you are not WP:CANVASSing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed about WP:CANVAS, but regardless you certainly can't count on it going past 6/23. If there are sources, just copy the links and post them here for now. All that's required to keep is the existence of the sources. They can be worked into the article later. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:07, 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, slakr\ talk / 02:57, 18 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 08:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this is ok to do this far into the discussion -- seems like an oversight since she's better known for this kind of work than as a politician (and if politicians delsort is how many people come to the discussion, I could see why she, framed as first and foremost a politician, would not seem notable.--— Rhododendrites talk |  16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I am coming via Rhododendrites's flagging this as a Gender and Sexuality deletion, and in those terms and given the state of the page as today July 1st, it seems like she is a notable sex trafficking scholar/activist in Australia (given the detail in the criticism section). Given that, it seems like it makes sense to trim some of the biographical info from the Background section.--Theredproject (talk) 19:59, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Plestenjak[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, I believe he fails WP:CREATIVE and GNG Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does seem to be a working photographer, but awards mentioned are minor and non-notable, and lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' I don't see sources that would meet WP:BASIC. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:39, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bocking[edit]

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

Article about a filmmaker and politician, with no strong evidence that he passes our notability rules for either endeavour. His "notability" as a filmmaker is sourced entirely to primary sources and coverage in local community weeklies, with no indication provided that his film actually secured any meaningful distribution or media coverage — and his "notability" as a politician is limited to his candidacy for a seat on Toronto City Council (candidates for office do not pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being candidates, and that's especially true when the office being sought is at the municipal level of government.) I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up to actually get him past either POLITICIAN or WP:CREATIVE, but if the Scarborough Mirror is the best you can do for sourcing then your subject has not cleared the bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any activist worth the descriptor "activist" will get quoted a few times in newspaper articles, just because he's there to be quoted. He is not, however, the subject of those articles in which he gets quoted — which is what GNG requires. And your sourcing additions still relied primarily on minor neighbourhood weeklies, like the York Guardian and the Scarborough Mirror and the Toronto Observer, which don't surpass our reliable source rules. (Community weeklies might be acceptable for some confirmation of facts after enough other sources had been added to get the person over the notability hump, but they can't confer notability on a person by themselves as they're not broadly distributed enough.) Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Sun is a major big-city Canadian daily so I don't see how it can be identified as a local paper; it has a readership of 143,475 daily 200,644 Sunday, weekly circulation was 956,482 in 2011. Further, Toronto is Canada's largest city with population close to 3 million. So, when they cover him here and here, the editors feel he is notable. I have not heard of a Wikipedia guideline which rules out newspapers such as the Scarborough Mirror; I used to write for a local paper in New Jersey and I had to check and double-check my facts like all reporters, and I could be held accountable if my reporting had been inaccurate; is there anything in the Scarborough Mirror which is incorrect or untrue? Further, if the subject was only an activist, or only a filmmaker, I'd agree there might be notability issues; but the subject is multidimensional, being a union leader, filmmaker, public speaker, candidate for public office; the net effect—or gestalt if you will—is a changemaker. Bocking is about his causes (workers' rights, transportation, etc) rather than himself, and reporters reflect this in their coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the Toronto Sun was an inherently invalid source — it is, however, a problematic one, as it's a Fleet Street-style tabloid newspaper that frequently inserts ideologically biased editorial commentary directly into its news coverage, and thus presents WP:NPOV problems. But the overarching problem with the Toronto Sun articles is, as I noted above, that Bocking is not the subject of the articles in question — his name appears in a couple of their articles giving a brief quote about something else, but that is not the same thing as substantive coverage in which he is the subject.
And yes, Wikipedia does deprecate low-circulation community weeklies as prima facie evidence of notability. They're not invalid for additional verification of facts after basic notability has been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot confer notability if they are the article's main or only sources — because by their very nature, they cover many more things of exclusively local interest (church bake sales, purely local businesses, etc.) that don't belong in an encyclopedia. They're not discounted because they're somehow less trustworthy than major dailies — they're discounted because their coverage focus is too localized to adequately prove that a topic belongs in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 14 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 08:20, 18 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability beyond his candidacy; all the sources are but trivial mentions. Wikipedia is not an election billboard. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on Bearcat and Ohconfucius, changing Keep to Undecided (above). My sense is this subject is borderline notability, could go either way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There needs to be significant coverage about Bocking in independent reliable sources. Being quoted is not having an article written about you. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local activist and politician who does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon detectives tour 2011[edit]

Pigeon detectives tour 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since March 2011. This article reads like a schedule - I don't see any reason for their tour venues to merit its own article Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Arthur Greener Penlington[edit]

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

Nothing in this article nor the link provide suggests that he is notable Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Apart from a handful of exceptions, people with a DNZB entry are inherently notable, and this person is certainly not one of the exceptions. Note that I have started a discussion on the wider issues around inherent DNZB notability. Schwede66 20:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article currently lists as a source "Old Colonists" which seems to be about a different William Penlington, the subject's father. This should be fixed. Given the excellent online archives of old NZ newspapers it should be possible to find other sources to replace it. (This is not in itself a reason for or against deletion, but adequate replacement sources would help strengthen the case for notability.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just added a number of sources (including the "Old Colonists" reference that User:David Eppstein takes issue with above, which as noticed deals with the subjects' family rather than the subject themselves). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. If the NZ'ers think its notable then we should agree. Victuallers (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs work but will end up meeting criteria. NealeFamily (talk) 09:51, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfigured bass[edit]

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

Nonexistent topic, kind of like Meals without bananas —Wahoofive (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a nonextant topic: Heinichen and others devote whole chapters to it and a better analogy would perhaps be Recipes without exact measurements. Isn't merging the most obvious course? Though the most interesting content so far is on the Talkpage... Sparafucil (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably could include a few sentences on the topic within Figured bass, but other than the how-to (not appropriate for WP) there isn't much to say other than "have to guess what the figures would be if they were there". —Wahoofive (talk)
The how to guess is the interesting part, and the attention it has historically gotten is (I think) clearly not what WP:NOTHOW is talking about, or we'd have to do without articles about composition and counterpoint as well. I don't mean to be ornery though; that paragraph sounds like a good idea, with a merging of the talk-history. Sparafucil (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following rewrite by User:Musicmaster7. Just because there are few or no explicit instructions given about how to do something does not mean that there is nobody writing about it, or that the only things to say about it are how to do it. Beyond what is now in the article, there is almost certainly something to be said about the history of the topic. PWilkinson (talk) 18:38, 21 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of improvements made to the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hardin[edit]

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

Where's the notability? The only references are the North Dakota team site and that he was drafted. Jacona (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 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 09:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable American football (NGRIDIRON).Jacona (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Was an Associated Press All-American. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Is not listed on the all American team at the AP's web site[19].204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • He played in the FCS and is definitely on that AP list. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he is not on the AP All-America list. He is on the AP FCS All-America Third Team. If we work hard enough, soon we will be able to count sixth team Pop-Warner All North-NorthEast Picayune Township New Jersey players notable.
      • I can promise you - even once the NFL starts drafting from the ranks of Pop Warner - that I will never vote "keep" for someone who comes out of the NNEPTNJ. I draw the line at the relatively few outstanding college football players who have received significant coverage beyond being members of notable teams. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 21:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you will be getting beaten up on AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comment immediately above was made by a sock puppet who was blocked on June 27, 2014. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no presumption of notability for an FCS third-team All-America selection. Period. Wikiproject College Football has given such de facto recognition to Division I consensus first-team All-Americans, but not to All-Americans from lesser NCAA divisions, nor to Division I second-term, third-team and honorable All-America selections. All college football players who did not receive a national (i.e. MAJOR) college sports award (e.g., Heisman, Biletnikoff, consensus All-America recognition, College Football Hall of Fame inductee, etc.), or set a major Division I record per WP:NCOLLATH, must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG -- significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are "independent of the subject" (i.e. no school newspapers, no Associated Press or university press releases, etc.). This subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH nor the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass notability requirements at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur, there does not seem to be any measure of notability achieved here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sampson Sievers[edit]

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

Sources do not support notability. 1292simon (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 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 09:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources listed as external links appear sufficient to me. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 18 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would be more than willing to !vote to keep an article about an objectively notable religious mystic. But the current version of the article reads, literally, like a hagiography; in its current state it isn't acceptable for the Wikipedia mainspace. I am finding it difficult to wade through the excessive detail and the accounts of miracles told as fact, in order to find the kind of objective content that would establish his notability. I'd like to see clearer identification of his influence on, and/or recognition by, significant elements of the Orthodox Church. --03:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There are sources. The article being written in poor style is not reason to delete it, it is reason to imporve it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 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 deckertalk 15:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruparelia[edit]

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

Irrelevant article, no information can be backed up with sources. Has attracted vandalism during it's existence. Saxin00 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - no valid reasons were given to delete; see WP:BEFORE and WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources that I can find after searching, although I remain open that they may exist. The problem comes when other sources list Wikipedia as authoritative, such as here, that is, is Wikipedia perpetuating untruths. Most likely this topic is better reserved for the Indian version of Wikipedia, since they would be in a much better position to check sources; at present, this topic is not listed on the Indian Wikipedia as far as I can tell.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:17, 18 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a vanity article with no sources, with links to specific family members' websites. Runs into GNG issues as well as, probably, BLP. As far as nomination rationale, the nom did say "no information can be backed up with sources" which literally would mean it's unverifiable (certainly a valid reason for deletion) but I think it's fair to say he/she meant there are no sources. Regardless, there's a reason to delete. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:21, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art & Deal[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a magazine that exists. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 19:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real coverage, just some newspaper mentions in passing such as "Art & Deal's art critic says ..." and the cited Chronology. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly object the proposal of deleting this entry. Art and deal is a very important document of India's changing art field. It has been in print for more than a decade now! And reputed critics and scholars regularly write for it (Saying this as a subscriber and as someone who has been witnessing the quicksilver Indian art field from close quarters ).

The lack of sources have nothing to do with its importance, but the competitiveness of the market and the fact that it has survived so long without promoting itself with fake or paid "news". Also let's not forget that it in itself is a media that creates sources!

Nonetheless, I have added a few reliable sources. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arty Lighter (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I know no accurate way to judge this, so , on the basis of WP:Cultural Bias, I think we would better serve our users by including it. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 24 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know there are not many sources to justify Art & Deal's inclusion in Wikipedia, nonetheless it is an important magazine on Indian art and deserves to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkishore (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "I think this is important" is not a good rationale to argue for keeping this article. As for cultural bias, that would only be the case if we would be giving this magazine a harder time than others. On the contrary, all sources are acceptable, whether in English or in one of the Indian languages. If not even such sources can be found, I don't see a way to write a verifiable neutral article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 15:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Galicia[edit]

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

Something is just not right here. As explained in more detail on the talk page, from 27 July 2006 until 8 February 2013 this article existed under the title Nichole Robinson. It was facing proposed deletion until I found sources (notably, a feature in the Spanish newspaper La Voz de Galicia [20]) stating that Nichole Robinson is the same actress now known as Nichole Galicia, who had a role in Django Unchained. Based on all that information, on 8 February 2013 I moved the article to Nichole Galicia with a redirect from Nichole Robinson and added references to some of the recent articles about her.

Since then, a number of IP and SPA editors have come to the page asserting that Nichole Robinson and Nichole Galicia are not the same person. But if they are not, then we do not have sufficient reliable sources here to show notability, because all but one of the sources refer to work performed under both names. The notability of the subject is marginal in any case, but if the earlier "Nichole Robinson" roles are excluded, there really isn't much of a case to keep the article. Of the four cited sources, three of them mention roles played under both names: in addition to the piece from La Voz de Galicia, the Ebony article mentions her earlier roles in Huff and Love Don't Cost a Thing[21], and the Uptown article lists Love Don’t Cost A Thing and Dirty[22]. There's no credit for Nichole Galicia in any of those projects, so removing the name Nichole Robinson from the article while allowing the credits to remain leaves us with a seriously inaccurate article.

There is a related discussion [23] at the Help Desk. Wikipedia:Help desk#BLP inaccuracies. Both there and on the talk page, an editor identifying herself as Nichole Galicia has asked for deletion of this article due to inaccuracies.

The bottom line: if the cited sources aren't accurate, we are left with a failure of verifiability and the article should be deleted. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I think its the same person trying to re-invent themselves and dump their history, a bit like how Tom Hanks will never talk about BIG. The internet archive of Nicholerobinson.com (Bio section) lists the disputed films/roles and also states her name as Nichole Galicia. If they are two separate people they need a good publicist to distinguish them from one another as Nicole Robinson also has an IQ of 183 the same as Nicole Galicia. - X201 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That possibility has occurred to me more than once, but in that case I'm inclined to favor deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which allows deletion of an article where the relatively unknown subject requests it. I can anticipate discussion of whether her notability is sufficiently marginal to qualify under that clause. But deletion would be better, at least, than leaving the article in an inaccurate condition where credits are listed under a name for which no credit actually exists, or where substantial information from reliable sources is excluded without good cause. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If she's not notable at all, then I'm OK with deletion on that count. The angle I was worried about was a process of delete this article, then up pops a new article that is notable and only covers the post Django career. - X201 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that thought has also crossed my mind, and I agree with you 100%. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, as explained above, there is no "Nichole Galicia" in any of those other films and TV shows, so that information's accuracy is in doubt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is relevant to whether the article titled Nichole Galicia should be deleted. Most likely, she changed her name; perhaps she got married or divorced; what's the big deal? Here is one source saying she simply changed her name from Robinson to Galicia. Why this has anything to do with a deletion discussion is beyond me, since the actress/model is clearly notable. I don't see how it calls into question the accuracy of the entire article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, there has been a long string of editors (some of them identifying themselves as the subject) who have contested this, most recently at the Help Desk and previously at [24] and [25] and [26] and [27] and [28] and [29] and [30] and [31] and [32] and [33]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple solution is let's leave out any mention of the word Robinson in this article. Then, Nichole Galicia, regardless of any past names or associations, regardless of any past confusion, is highly notable. Would that end the fuss? In addition, we can not know for sure whether anybody identifying themselves as one or more of these persons is the real person, unfortunately; rather, let's stick with the one name, and the references, and that, said the cat, is that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, please consider deleting this redirect page from Nichole Robinson to Nichole Galicia. It is recommended that the closing admin delete the redirect page since this appears to be one more splinter causing this article inflammation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a suitable solution; it would leave us with a blatantly inaccurate article. It is clear that no one named Nichole Galicia appeared in any the pre-2009 movies. If we leave out the references to Nichole Robinson while keeping the credits that belong to her, we leave the article with a serious problem. At the risk of repeating what I've been saying all along: Either Nichole Robinson is the same person as Nichole Galicia (as stated in the apparently reliable La Voz de Galicia article but disputed by various editors) or none of the articles that refer to older credits can be accepted as accurate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arxiloxos; that would then make it an article without coverage of the whole subject. The La Voz de Galicia article, and the NicoleRobinson.com website support the fact that Robinson and Galicia are the same person. There are only two possible correct outcomes to this, Delete the whole article as per the nom, or Keep the article with the Galicia and Robinson content intact. - X201 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then, if it is decided that we must keep both names in the article, Robinson and Galicia, and there is a source saying they're the same person, then so be it; but it seems to me then this issue will not be resolved this way, with constant fuss about the two names when the current name -- Nichole Galicia -- is the most important one. In my view, this is like the Shakespeare play Much Ado About Nothing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 22 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the accuracy of the information in question, we should err on the side of caution and delete the article until people can come up with a solidly sourced one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Without the Robinson credits, we have just one film. That means a failure of the notability guidelines for entertainers, which is at least 2 significant roles in major films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The Robinson issue is irrelevant. The reliable sources refer to a Nichole Galicia who is clearly notable given these sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think that the evidence makes it pretty clear that they're both the same person, but even if they are I think that with only one notable role it's stretching it a bit to say she meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete marginal notability and the, not entirely disproved, concerns about the accuracy of biographical info in the article, give me enough cause for concern to suggest we should delete this one. Bellerophon talk to me 07:51, 8 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. GB fan 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cooper Cox[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being one of a large group collectively awarded a notable award does not make an individual notable themselves. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:58, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Paul Boulad[edit]

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

On notability grounds. Founded a non-notable martial art variation (please see AfD debate) of a traditional stick fighting dance.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. There's also no evidence to show he's notable as an academic or martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References updated with orginal official copy mandat from the Egyptian Ministry of Sports commissions about Tahtib modern and urban development as a sport in Egypt – September 25th, 2013

*Keep References updated to official UNESCO Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage Nomination ninth session file no 00992 presented by Egypt states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenobulle (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Grenobulle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Grenobulle, please just vote once per discussion. I struck your second vote. As far the UNESCO application goes, applying and receiving the designation are quite different and these are related to Tahtib--not to Boulad. The discussion isn't whether Tahtib is notable, it's whether Boulad is notable. Papaursa (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa, I mention both official mandat from official Egyptian state agencies, Ministry of sport commission, ministry of cultur and the permante delegation of egypt to the UNESCO, both mandat are nominatively affected to Boulad and i guess can be concidered as notable. Ps I'm new on the wikipedia governacy sorry for any error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenobulle (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing the significant independent required to meet GNG. I'll admit I don't know what having a mandate from the government to develop a sport really means. I do know that Modern Tahtib was just considered not notable at its own AfD, so being its developer doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE. The UNESCO things deals with traditional Tahtib, not the modern version that Boulad has created (or it wouldn't be part of "cultural heritage").Mdtemp (talk) 18:01, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Olympic Team[edit]

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

Non-notable team / organisation. The group (currently at http://www.nativevoices.org/ / http://snow-riders.org/ as far as I can tell) is undoubtedly full of good people doing good work, but is not as described in this article and as far as I can tell is not notable per WP:NONPROFIT. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to demonstrate any third-party coverage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:ORG or any recognized category of sports articles. I find much of the information to be shaky or dubious; it keeps claiming the team is an "officially recognized Olympic team" by various colleges, college programs, and a potential sponsor (!), but they cannot give "official Olympic recognition" to the program; only the International Olympic Committee can do that. They have never competed in an Olympics, and I wonder if the use of the term "Olympic Team" in their title is even legal. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 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 keep. j⚛e deckertalk 15:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Yakupoğlu[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. No claim to notability. Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 14:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck duplicate !vote above. The nomination itself is the !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 10:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Culture and Tourism government award may indicate notability but Google Translate is not enough. Someone with Turkish language and background is needed to evaluate whether it is important enough to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 14 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 09:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem about this article is it has been written with a bad English and possibly by a contributor that is not very familiar with WP rules and pactices. Now I added another reference in the article and vote (sic) Keep. I hope more people will work on this stub-article (it does not even have sections) and help to make it much better. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:58, 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 deckertalk 06:35, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book DB[edit]

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

Non-notable website. References are trivial, primary, or fail verification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" there are enough references, and it's used as a resource by comic industry professionals.DunDunDunt (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment" A Comic Book DB ID has now been accepted as a Wikidata Authority Control.DunDunDunt (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 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. A good demonstration here that longwinded arguments are rarely convincing ones. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Sent Gaming[edit]

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

Non-notable business website. Almost no hits on a Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep", not a business though, it's a website with enough sources to warrant a stub. 97.123.55.117 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep", this subject is listed on several databases. And, I've been doing library research, and the tertiary sources will be added once research is complete; though they're not required for the article to exist. More time is needed for this article to become more than a stub. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong Keep" just found an AMAZING search option on Google to find more information on this topic. Google Search DunDunDunt (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: DunDunDunt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
"Keep", I wouldn't think that I, or anything Isabel and I are connected with, would be within the scope of Wikipedia. But, DunDunDunt seems interested in doing research on my Heaven Sent Gaming project. And, according to MediaWiki Commons they say that entry into authority records, in reference to Isabel and I, "makes both of you relevant and therefore photos of you guys are in scope of the project". I don't think I'm notable or interesting; but, apparently others are arguing otherwise. Smile Lee (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Smile Lee (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
I have added an image to this article, adding images is all I will be doing to edit this or any article related to me or Heaven Sent Gaming. I'm not interested in myself as an encyclopedic subject. Smile Lee (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong Keep" I change my vote, after reading what Mr. Lucero said I will be supporting him and Heaven Sent Gaming "as an encyclopedic subject". I was only moderately interested in this. Mostly I like to edit skateboarding articles on the 'pedia. Ever thought of skating Mario? Maybe at least do an HSGplays episode of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater!!! 97.123.55.117 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — 97.123.55.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You've already !voted once already. What is this, vote early and vote often?  Philg88 ♦talk 05:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've corrected my double vote, and I'll assume good faith that 97.123.55.117 had a another accidental double vote. I think I've corrected it. Wikipedia's AFD is Consensus, that "is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I wouldn't think to double vote. Back to consensus, in my prior post I refuted the "Almost no hits on a Google search" argument. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that these are WP:ILIKEIT votes from new accounts with few edits. Please stop voting multiple times, guys. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not a new user, I have more than a few edits, I don't care much about this subject. My current project is Al Hurricane and the discography of that musician. Also, we can't know the entire contribution history of the anonymous user, since they cycle through IPs. Smile Lee (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Notability failure. I'm not seeing the required significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the Collins College newsletter, an accredited American higher learning institution, and verifiable with a cache. Also, The Albuquerque Tribune tidbit is unfortunately unverifiable via any online cache I can find. Never-the-less, there are several other reliable independent sources. "significant coverage" is followed properly as well; the article is already a few paragraphs long and only relies on three primary sources thus far. This subject's "significant coverage" is also covered via each of it's individual published titles, and those related to the subject; meaning the article has plenty of coverage to allow for growth. NOTE HOWEVER I don't think that their individual creations or creators warrant individual articles yet, until coverage is large enough on each individual subject, this article SHOULD be used as comprehensive on the subject. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88, NinjaRobotPirate, and Smile Lee: thank you for helping to make this article more reliable and allowing me to explain its subject's notability better. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd like to note that this article was requested YEARS ago, Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Internet_and_tech_culture. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, just edited the article, I would recommend a full blown "History" section to be composed into a sequential set of events in a narrative fashion. The "Works" section will be a nice resource, but that "History" section I mentioned would be a pretty beastly project. After a few searches around the 'net there are more than enough notable sources to work with. The annoying part is that this subject's fields and publishing history are such a pain in the ass to reference in a single Google Search (YOU LITERALLY HAVE TO LOOK UP EVERY SINGLE TOPIC SEPARATELY! JUST TO FIND SOME NOTABLE SOURCES!!!). This article wouldn't just be a joy to have on Wikipedia, which I believe it would, it would also help out anyone trying to find out some god-damned information about these subjects! No wonder this was requested so long ago. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — 97.123.7.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being placed on the "requested article" list has no influence on notability. Kolbasz (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability not established. WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Albuquerque Tribune is the only reliable, independent secondary source in the article, but the citation is only a trivial mention. Kolbasz (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Somehow didn't see the AfD notice and started to write my own, so will just paste it here: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It appears all of the many sources here either published by the organization, social networking sites like LinkedIn, or not about Heaven Sent Gaming but about one of the comics/bands they publish. The WP article seems to focus on the individual titles they happened to publish and seems largely promotional (especially given the sourcing). --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closer - Please note the abundance of SPAs, similar voting style, enthusiasm, and existing connection to the article among seemingly all of the Keep votes. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be more specific, all of the keep votes so far: DunDunDunt (page creator), Smile Lee (seems to be an owner/founder of the subject of the article), 97.123.55 (SPA), 97.123.7.170 (SPA). Note the shared enthusiasm, with exclamation points and whatnot, and in particular the shared range of the two IPs. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I noticed that, too, but it's probably best to assume good faith and chalk it up to shared enthusiasm by a small cadre of supporters. I nominated another article created by the same user, and it has attracted none of the enthusiastic repeat votes of this one. If these were truly sock puppets, I think they would have also posted on the other article's AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, thanks for following up on that. I'll just clarify that I don't think everybody saying keep is a sock -- just that it consists of the page creator, page subject, and two IPs which, in addition to being from the same IP range, share a similar style of comment, having both changed keep to strong keep, using lots of exclamation marks, and so on. --— Rhododendrites talk |  18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also note that, though Mario is the subject of the page, he does not seem to have any intention of keeping up this article. So it's not like he seems to have a dog in the fight, and he has not re-voted. I got a bit pissed off last night about finding sources on this subject, that was what the exclamation marks were about, they were not about my excitement for the article. I would also like to reiterate that I feel as though that this topic has the notability when in combination with it's related subjects, which are as of now, not entirely covered in this article. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep: it passes WP:NCORP "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity", those anonymous IPs are in and around New Mexico; meaning the subject is regional, but discussed. Also, Google search turns up plenty on this "organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services". The college note and Albuquerque Tribune mention is "Independent of the subject", "Reliable", and non-trivial as they come from different regions (Arizona and New Mexico). Finally the IMDB, AllMusic, and Spotify, and other database listings adds verifiability on the subject(s). The article is a bit short though, needs more information. As Bruddah IZ would say, "I've seen it all, done it all, known it all." This subject is different, but it's worthy of notice.BeachParadise (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — BeachParadise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Rhododendrites:, my account is not a single purpose account, I have had another account listed on my user page, and have edited anonymously prior. I focus on Hawaii-related articles, but once in a while like to edit Southwestern US articles too. Please remove that tag you are mis-categorizing me. I'll assume that you mean well, but I also want to insure that you are not attempting to discredit my fair assessment on the article. BeachParadise (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BeachParadise: I see. But the other account you mention also has only 2 edits and was created in the last couple days. Although FYI the "spa" tag I added doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count. As you can probably understand, though, it's highly unusual for a very new user to know about AfD and participate in an AfD, so when someone with a new account does so, and has few other edits, it's almost always (indeed not necessarily always) because motivated by something other than the truest application of Wikipedia standards.
More on point regarding your keep rationale, NCORP does not require fame, importance, or popularity as those are all too subjective. Notability is Wikipedia's quasi-objective alternative that effectively defers that judgment. Notability in that way requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So Heaven Sent Gaming must be the subject (or a subject) of multiple high quality sources that have no relationship to Heaven Sent Gaming. If those sources are shown to exist, I -- and I imagine others -- would be happy to change my opinion on the matter as I have absolutely no prior knowledge of this subject, nor do I have strong feelings about it. But as of now, those sources do not seem to exist. See WP:RS for an explanation of reliable sourcing and WP:N for a general overview of notability. --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites:I was speaking on Kolbasz statement on the WP:NCORP, which this article meets the rationale for. It also covers, the WP:N rationale, through Wikipedia:NCORP Heaven Sent Gaming has "attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" from multiple sources. It's in the article, and more than a few of the references meet WP:RS with "peer-reviewed sources", most (if not all) primary sources are backed by secondary or tertiary sources, and the vast majority of primary sources are clearly "written or published by the subject of the biographical material", meaning they are acceptable. Mahalo braddah. Final thing, "Very Strong" is a native Hawaiian reference, which is why my "Keep" is the way it is. BeachParadise (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Commons and wikidata as source Musamies (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks for those amazing "Helpful links" on your page. Heaven Sent Gaming is now cleaned of most, if not all, non-reliable citations and non-verifiable resources; according to Film/Resources, Video games/Sources, Comics/References, Albums/Sources, Novels/Resources. It is now a much more reliably sourced article. Though, the "biographical material" still has primary sources due to that being acceptable, though they usually have accompanying secondary and tertiary source. :D DunDunDunt (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC) There is also another primary source, but it is accompanied with a tertiary source per Comics/References. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what a reliable source is, as I just clicked literally every link in the reflist and did not come across even one (although to be fair there are a couple I don't have access to, which may very well prove me wrong). Very few are even articles/substantive writing beyond a tracklisting, a youtube channel, a brief mention of one of the acts its publishes, a user-submitted content site that only serves to verify something exists, and so on. If anybody can submit content (i.e. any social media site), it's not a reliable source. If it's not about the subject of the article, it's not "significant coverage." If it's written by or connected to someone involved with the subject, it's not independent of the subject. --— Rhododendrites talk |  18:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are social media sites, and 75% of the references are good resources according to the rules set forth as good references according to their respective Wikipedia project pages; you can't broad stroke notability, this clearly meets Project Comics, Project Novels, etc requirements. This article is about a notable subject with some notable published materials. The only things that remain as "written by or connected to someone involved" are a few autobiographical references. Even if your assessment is correct, which I don't.believe it is. Your assertions mean that the article simply needs more time, and this article clearly informs people in a non-biased way about the subject(s). 97.123.7.170 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, rather than further clarify WP:RS and WP:N, let's just use examples.
This is a list of all references on the page
These don't help notability as primary sources: official site (primary), official soundcloud, blog post on official site, another official site
These don't help notability as passing mentions, in addition to some being unreliable: name in a long list, us trademark office link, comicbookdb, last.fm tracklisting, a cofounder nominated for a shorty award (one of the better refs, but still just a passing mention)
These don't help notability as they don't even mention the subject of the article at all (and many are unreliable). Even if these established notability for one or more of the individual acts/titles published by the subject (which they don't), that wouldn't confer notability upon the publisher: computer science department newsletter, musicbrainz (wiki) bio for one of the founders, musicbrainz bio for the other founder, mtv tracklisting, another musicbrainz, allmusic tracklisting, radio station page that just links to a band's youtube video, a band asks fans to vote for it to play warped tour, cmt page with a couple images and a song to download, raw youtube channel statistics, band's youtube channel itself, another youtube video of a band, another of the band's music videos, more youtube channel statistics
There's also a very curious unlinked citation of an article in the Albuquerque Tribune with a title that returns no ghits other than this wikipedia article and is dated after the closure of the newspaper
So that's all of the sources except for the last five, which all come from one site, webfictionguide.com, which for some reason the public wifi I'm on thinks is pornography. I'm not familiar with webfictionguide.com, but it's not likely porn and probably worth looking at (but it appears on those five to establish notability). Ok, I'm admittedly taking up too much space in this discussion so I'll shut up now. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The computer science department newsletter mentions Heaven Sent Gaming, Musicbrainz is curated and is used as an Authority Control on biographical articles. This article is also a partial biography on Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz; they are Heaven Sent Gaming. Also MTV and CMT, both subsidiaries of Viacom, are relevant in this context to give credence and referential material to their published bands on non-primary sources. aywv isn't a band, they are a gaming news publication who's content has been used by other news agencies, ; those particular references are used in regard to particular statements; statistics for views by date, being networked by Square-Enix, and about a specific translation of a video. And each of these statements have been properly refuted multiple times. Final note, the Tribune's date is corrected, it's been corrected before, but this article's size has grown exponentially since it was nominated, could've happened at any point on accident, during that week they were discussing the happenings in and around Albuquerque and the important things to keep track off when the paper's gone. DunDunDunt (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Web Fiction Guide is another self-published/user-generated source. From Web Fiction Guide | About:

Web Fiction Guide is a community-run listing of online fiction. We list anything that is original and story-oriented (we don’t list fanfic or erotica), and that is available to read for free online.

Kolbasz (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Web fiction guide is not "self-published/user-generated" it is curated by editors, you can't just list a novel after a page or two it needs to be worth listing. And, even then, more listings are non-reviewed by editors; and non-mentioned on the front page. Both of which happened for Mario's fictional novels (which are both published and part of Heaven Sent Gaming). I don't know why it's coming up as porn, it's a webnovel site. Also, on the page Kolbasz mentioned:

Our goal is to help you find stuff you want to read.

That's clearly stated on Web Fiction Guide. The reference being used in the reaction portion of the article in reference to editor reviews. I have however added better citation to those reviews, in particular a cache of it being featured on the front page.
DunDunDunt (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comic Book DB is used as a reference on comic book articles. Though I'm not sure if it needs an article on Wikipedia, and I don't care much to find out. Comic Book DB is a fine resource, a tertiary source according to the Comic Wikipedia project. CMT and MTV also have bios written about the bands and both mention Heaven Sent Gaming as being key factors, the CMT bio even clearly states that HSG is Mario and Isabel.
    Though now I'm questioning why you've singled out this DunDunDunt user, this is why I don't create an account on here, I'm well-versed on the inner workings of Wikipedia, but this kind of bullshit occurs. What's worse is that this obviously well-referenced notable article is being called into question even after the AfD nominator is given ample example of the article's room to grow to encompass a notable subject.
NinjaRobotPirate is a brilliant user, and has a no-nonsense approach to Wikipedia, and I applaud him for that. I have no interest in this subject, except as an encyclopedic one, and I implore him to look at the excellent sourcing and notability guidelines being followed to a T on this article. This is a "start" rated article that deserves more time to incorporate more of the sources available. Considering none of their novels are listed here, there's only of their 7 comics listed here, and none of their video series are listed here. This article clearly has NO interest in selling their crap, I have taken a very non-enthusiastic look at their work, and they are clearly discussed in multiple places and listed on the appropriate databases. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update @97.123.7.170: A Comic Book DB ID has now been accepted as an Authority Control on Wikidata. These references aren't weird for a comic topic, which Heaven Sent Gaming is, in fact they add a level of verifiability. DunDunDunt (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Final Comment: I'd like to state that new media subjects like this are difficult to reference. Ie; Toby Turner, The Yogscast, Lasse Gjertsen, all of which are incredibly notable examples of Internet Culture articles that make HEAVY use of primary references, which again is fine for autobiographical content as long as it's verifiable and not making a ridiculous claim. This article needs time, the main subject and it's published titles have more than enough independently published sources to warrant a growing article. I will no longer be posting in this AfD, I'm confident that this article meets the requirements to remain on Wikipedia. I'm also confidant that I've logically refuted the remove votes. DunDunDunt (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Kolbasz. Notability has not been established. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer, User:Musamies, whom voted a delete on my other article Comic Book DB just edited the Wikidata entry on Heaven Sent Gaming and removed the link to this article. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the AFD discussion. It should remain in Wikidata until the AFD is concluded, but it's existance in Wikidata is not a factor in determining the outcome of the AFD. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was a factor, it has been on Wikidata longer than this article was created. This topics existence on Wikidata is independent of this article. It meets the criteria of a Wikidata entry regardless; MusicBrainz, IMDB, and various other reasons. I was simply stating the fact that the article was removed from its Wikidata entry, by a user that had commented on the Comic Book DB AfD. Which is an AfD about another article created by me; which hasn't gotten the attention this AfD has. DunDunDunt (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability clearly established, multiple sources will allow for article growth, it's written in non-biased manner, so i don't care whos writing it. I'm from Amsterdam, but, Nuevo México es mi vida, Johnny Tapia, gracias por los saludos. 5.79.72.193 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons why Snafu Comics was kept. There's enough info on them, and each of their published works. The CMT and MTV articles even mention them, and their publishing history, on the Biography pages, although I think Viacom's artist bios are down as of right now. 78.47.151.98 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — 78.47.151.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note this article is WAAAAY better sourced than Snafu's, why is this article up for deletion? 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Having sources in the reference section isn't quite the same as being "better sourced". Almost every single one of the sources in this article are unreliable, trivial, or primary. -- ferret (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changed to a STRONG KEEP below as LuigiToeness, ^ btw, this article is much better than most new media articles on here, speaking of which, shouldn't there be a better way to explain the notability of a new media subject? 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That argument only applies if you're referring to another Wikipedia article. No one's arguing whether this subject should have multiple articles. The support keeps, have all stated that this subject only requires a single article as is. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"this article is much better than most new media articles on here" -- that is the reference to another Wikipedia article. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a vague statement about multiple articles within this translation of Wikipedia. You didn't address the issues with New Media notability. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note their Klout score has been in the high 40s before, and they continuously swing upward after updating. [34] which, in case you're wondering, isn't easy. And you're saying MTV, CMT, a newspaper, college dept newsletter, several tertiary comic links, independent reviews in Web Fiction Guide, The Shorty Awards, and others; are "unreliable, trivial, or primary"? You're kidding me. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's exactly what we're saying. Because none of them talk specifically about "Heaven Sent Gaming" in significant detail while also being reliable (i.e. does not allow any user contributions, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not self-published). --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about their Klout Score though, eh? Convenient. Most the "deletes" on here are arbitrary arguments that side with vague interpretations on what these references say or don't say. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • HUGE Comment "does not allow any user contributions" and "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "not self-published" are not policy based. But, let's go down the list. By number:
  1. "Media - General - New Mexico Net" is a tertiary source that as a curated list of sites does not allow direct "user contributions", it "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is not "not self-published".
  2. "Heaven Sent Gaming - Official Web-site - About Page" is a primary source cached page, only used to source a date.
  3. U.S. Trademark shows the time at which interest in using it commercially was thought of, and is a tertiary source, that "does not allow any user contributions" and "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "not self-published".
  4. The Albuquerque Tribune is a secondary source "not self published", the paper had "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and did "not allow any user contributions".
  5. "Mario J. Lucero - MusicBrainz" is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  6. "Isabel Ruiz - MusicBrainz" is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  7. Heaven Sent Gaming at the Grand Comics Database is a curated tertiary source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  8. Heaven Sent Gaming at the Comic Book DB is a curated tertiary source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  9. Heaven Sent Gaming publishing catalog at MusicBrainz is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  10. "Mario J. Lucero - New Music And Songs - CMT" is a secondary source "not self published", has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although the bio portion is currently missing from most Viacom artists, it contains a bit of a history of Heaven Sent Gaming in a non-trivial manner.
  11. "Life Never Lost - New Music And Songs - MTV" is a secondary source "not self published", has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although the bio portion is currently missing from most Viacom artists, it contains a bit of a history of Heaven Sent Gaming in a non-trivial manner.
  12. Collins College newsletter, secondary source that is "not self-published".
  13. "HSGpodcasts" primary source used to source a bit of a the bio of living persons.
  14. "Antonia "Toni" Lucero - Heaven Sent Gaming" used to source a bit of a the bio of living persons.
  15. 1140 S Priest Dr - Google Maps, location of Collins College, not sure if it's relevant, but it's interesting. Might be removed.
  16. Mario's vlog. primary source used to source a bit of a the bio of living persons. (might I add it IS an IMDB listed video series.)
  17. "aywv - about page - YouTube" used to source #1 position on charts.
  18. "Aywv Channel Graphs" secondary source shows Square Enix connection
  19. BladeChick, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  20. Karis, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  21. Koki'o, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  22. Mouton, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  23. Reverie, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  24. Thad’s World Destruction, three sources, primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  25. "Release "All We Are" by Life Never Lost - MusicBrainz" is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  26. "All We Are – Life Never Lost – Listen and discover music at Last.fm" primary/secondary source from well known music social website.
  27. "Rgh! (Wookie Sound With Inflection of Hope) - Life Never Lost - Songs, Reviews, Credits, Awards - AllMusic" secondary source on AllMusic for second album release information.
  28. "Life Never Lost - Click the band you want to see on 104.1 the Edge" secondary source for artist's nomination
  29. "Life Never Lost". Archived from the original" primary source cached page, in order to show nomination information.
  30. Iron, two sources, single primary and two tertiary.
  31. Many, two sources, single primary and two tertiary.
  32. "aywv - Topic - YouTube" tertiary source to show aywv topic on YouTube
  33. "Final Fantasy XIII (TGS 2009 Japanese Trailer 03)" primary source in order to show the video in question.
  34. "Aywv Recent Videos - YouTube Statistics" secondary source to show stats relevant to the claim.
  35. "Mario J. Lucero - The Shorty Awards" secondary source to show relevant claim.
  36. "Web Fiction Guide - free online novels, story collections, reviews" used as secondary source used to show reviews of two stories in particular. "not self published", the site has editors that must approve a novel before it's listed and not all listed novels get reviewed (yet alone by an editor) "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Also a cached page to show the "Selected Reviews".

29=tertiary, 15=primary (9 of which are okay by relevant WikiProject reference information), and 11=secondary. This article is fine. This will be my final post in here, I'm serious. I thought this AfD was supposed to be closed. DunDunDunt (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the facts comrade, this is actually mostly non-arbitrary. My keep remains. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either you misunderstand or you're intentionally misrepresenting both Wikipedia policy and the sources, but between that and the SPA turnout, my WP:AGF meter is running low. Many articles about companies and websites are deleted every single day not because they aren't good or important, but because there are specific standards for article subjects on Wikipedia. Without those, it turns into a place for promotion or the yellow pages. With as dedicated a force as has been shown here, I'm sure it won't be long before it does get a sufficient amount of coverage and you can just recreate the article. I assure you I (and I can probably speak for others involved) have no problem with Heaven Sent Gaming as an entity -- only with the practice of trying to overload an article with poor sources to create the superficial impression of notability (the technical Wikipedia term, not the synonym for "importance"). --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think he's coming back mate, I don't think he was arguing whether they were good or not. His arguments have been mostly encyclopedic, though some of his arguments were less than instrumental in swaying my Keep. A few of your links to specific Wikipedia policies actually convinced me thoroughly that this is an acceptable article that's only going to become better. There's still plenty to cover, they have a Bible translation from what I can see, and even a few other novels and comics. I believe this subject is notable according to Wikipedia policies, and as an individual subject should have an article. I actually don't give two fucks about Heaven Sent Gaming, I'm a staunch Richard Dawkins fan, and I can only imagine they'd bug the shit out of me personally. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the primary proponents and SPAs for this article keep bringing up the fact that they are athiest or non-Christian, when no one else is even discussing that? It has no bearing here, your motivation for liking or disliking a topic isn't a factor. These sources are not reliable. Rhododendrites has already illustrated that, with links to the applicable policy. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I like Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) above am starting to have a hard time assuming good faith - the very first source claimed to be reliable and not user-generated is very obviously user-generated. But here's a huge reply with an actual breakdown of the references in the article:
    1. New Mexico Net: User-generated/listing page.
    2. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    3. USPTO: Irrelevant. Says absolutely nothing about notability.
    4. Albuquerque Tribune: actually a reliable source and valid for establishing notability! Unfortunately, only a trivial mention.
    5. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    6. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    7. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    8. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    9. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    10. CMT Artists: Self-published. Create an account and they put up a page for you.
    11. MTV Artists: Self-published. Create an account and they put up a page for you.
    12. Collins College Computer Science Department Newsletter: A department newsletter of a 1200 student college does not establish notability. It'll report on anything that's of interest to the people at the college, not to the world at large.
    13. HSGpodcasts: Primary, self-published.
    14. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    15. Google Maps: Irrelevant.
    16. Mario's vlog: Primary, self-published.
    17. Youtube about page: Primary, self-published.
    18. Youtube about page: Primary, self-published.
    19. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    20. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    21. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    22. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    23. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    24. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    25. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    26. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    27. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    28. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    29. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    30. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    31. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    32. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    33. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    34. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    35. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    36. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    37. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    38. last.fm: User-generated/listing page.
    39. AllMusic: listing page.
    40. Embedded Youtube video
    41. Life Never Lost: Primary, self-published.
    42. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    43. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    44. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    45. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    46. Youtube
    47. Youtube
    48. Youtube
    49. Shorty Awards: "These categories are free for everyone to enter, simply by tweeting a nomination. Choose one of the Official Categories below or make your own Community Category."
    50. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    51. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    52. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    53. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    54. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
If it's incomplete or contains errors it's because I started losing the will to live after the first few dozen or so.
And again: the issue isn't a lack of proof of existence but a lack of proof of notability. Listing pages like e.g. MusicBrainz are like phone books. You can use a phone book to show that there probably is a John Doe at the corner of Example Street and Tortured Analogy Avenue with the number 555-123456, but you can't use it to show that he's famous. And for user-generated content, you have no idea if the information is even accurate. Kolbasz (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before by DunDunDunt- Grand Comic Books Database and ComicBook DB are acceptable under Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References - or are you ignoring that? - MusicBrainz is curated. - New Mexico Net is curated by the admin of that site obviously. - Web Fiction Guide is not "User-Generated" in this context, it's clearly reviewed by an editor of the site, and it was featured on the front page.

Stating - "YouTube", trivial mention "for multiple statements", and "It'll report on anything that's of interest to the people at the college" - is simply an arbitrary and biased interpretation of the content therein. Even if DunDunDunt is gone, I'm gonna keep up this fight, these topics in this subject are clearly notable. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notable, here's the official policy on general notability here on Wikipedia, and why this subject passes the test:

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
Both of the main secondary sources, Tribune and Collins, provide more than enough information to provide enough information for two-three paragraphs.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
As stated before, there are secondary sources. And, they are clearly reliable due to them not contradicting primary sources or tertiary sources.
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
many secondary and tertiary sources to backed by primary sources. There are multiple reliable secondary single sources, as discussed before. And all of the sources are available online which is a plus.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Several of the secondary and tertiary sources are clearly not produced by the subject or someone affiliated with it. Even a few of the tertiary sources that might be added by them, are curated, like MusicBrainz.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
This article obeys all of the rules in WP:NOT, it is not a problem according to WP:DISCRIMINATE, and this topic deserves a standalone article since it houses multiple notable subjects. It "treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary", and all that good stuff.

Done-and-done. I realize several corporation's articles get deleted - articles that get deleted tend to not follow the above rules, which this article obeys and then some. since this is an unusual subject since it's also various arts and entertainment, it needs to be handled under the general rule of thumb. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of a reliable source is, simply, incorrect. Not contradicting primary or tertiary sources is not the "bar" to be met. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? These Reliable Sources according to Wikipedia you mean?
  • News organizations such as the Tribune.
- The Tribune article has been unduly called "trivial", which as defined by WP:TRIVIALMENTION, "a topic in "one sentence" are insufficient to establish that topic's notability". This reference has a sentence and devoted paragraph that gives more independent information about Heaven Sent Gaming's connection to United Feature Syndicate.
  • Scholarly and News organization, "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."
- This reference possible falls into this comment, Collins College is accredited meaning, "The U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (a non-governmental organization) both recognize reputable accrediting bodies for institutions of higher education. They also provide guidelines as well as resources and relevant data regarding these accreditors. Neither the U.S. Department of Education nor the CHEA accredit individual institutions." So this reference is reliable and third party, for what it's used for as a reference.
  • Self-published "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff".
- Tertiary sources such as Grand Comics Database, Music Brainz, and Web Fiction Guide falls under this for sure.
Anything else? 144.76.174.53 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been saying, this passes the General Notability Guideline. DunDunDunt (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It fails the GNG, and none of the various long winded responses from the numerous SPAs has convinced me otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: As stated by 144.76.174.53, this subject and it's topics meet GNG. And, it isn't policy to ignore WP:SPAs, "Focus on the subject matter, not the person." Most of the SPAs in this conversation shouldn't have been tagged this way according to the "Whom not to tag" section, you shouldn't tag any of these users for "Editing only within a single broad topic", "Lack of a user page", or "Editing time line". I'm extremely surprised @Smile Lee: hasn't returned, since tagging his posts as "appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed" under "WP:COI", could be considered WP:Libel. Especially considering Smile Lee hasn't made any efforts to have a Wikipedia article about himself. He's been on here for ages, and has created the majority of articles surrounding the local musician Al Hurricane. He has not displayed COI issues involving this article, and his points were relevant to this discussion. I'm fine with my Comic Book DB article being deleted, I was not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines I'll admit that, but I stand by this article. I'm way more experiences in Wikipedia rules, which this subject meets the criteria for being accepted. DunDunDunt (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not libel for them to point out the obvious, there's a fair assumption of WP:COI, it's common practice in the AfD process. Honestly I am personally exacerbated that this discussion has been stretched for so many paragraphs. My "Keep" vote is still there, and is now more strongly in the "Keep" camp. After the extra evidence that's been supplied, the conclusion I have arrived to is, with 100% confidence, this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't even know that there were available copies of the article at Collins and in the Tribune online. Smile Lee (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was ignoring them, I said I don't agree with their stance. And it's perfectly acceptable to point out SPAs, it often helps explains the influx of flawed, non-policy based arguments to the closing Admin (who would probably think the same thing anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this AfD has become an unruly mess. Categorizing things isn't bad, I do understand though that this can seem insulting to new users. Getting articles stuck in AfD can be pain when you're new. I would like to state that, again, for the record, I am not interested in maintaining this article, nor do I care whether Heaven Sent Gaming has an article or not. I'm a longtime Wikipedian, that's knowledgeable in most aspects of this site. And I am more interested in cataloging Al Hurricane, which is a subject who's article I created, as well as half of his discography as of now. Smile Lee (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing a little bit of research around Wikipedia. As of now there have been plenty of AfD discussions just like this one. Articles of Toby Turner, Shay Carl, Snafu Comics (stated prior), MS Paint Adventures, and other "web culture" related articles. All of which have been subjected to MULTIPLE AfD nominations. This can't be right. Seriously, no notability guides for new media? This would save A LOAD of headaches from occurring. I'm going to start drafting a proposal, but I stick by the previous "Keep", this particular article already meets the criteria for general notability. BeachParadise (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like my help in composing that, I'd be interested, discussions about web media are often filled with misunderstandings in how this field operates. Contact me if you would like a bit of professional insight. Smile Lee (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can come to some sort of widespread consensus on such a thing, that's fine. But this particular AFD is not the place to try to create/enforce such a thing, or moan about its non-existence. That's comparable to trying to create new laws in the middle if a particular court case. It's not the pace to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I am not "moaning" about this anything's non-existence. I simply want to offer some input on his drafts. If you are referring to BeachParadise, they stated "I stick by the previous 'Keep', this particular article already meets the criteria for general notability." Nobody was trying to "create/enforce" a new guideline in this AfD, I asked them to contact me. You are misrepresenting that user's statements, and mine. Smile Lee (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INDENT. I was referring to "Beach" above you. And I was referring to their comment complaining about no guidelines for new media. That part alone, no misrepresentation here. Calm down, sheesh. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that neither Paradise or I claimed that new rules were required for this article to be kept. It meets WP:GNG. Smile Lee (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in this discussion, terms statements like "my WP:AGF meter is running low" have been used by experienced users against newbies. It's not your fault, and you're not to blame. I didn't mean to sound snappy, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm just acting a bit sassy, it is not right for experienced editors to be berating new/potential editors. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Smile Lee (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference [35]. Implemented it into the article. DunDunDunt (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, that's how you provide more information on a subject's notability. You can't just show the old sources, they already made up their opinion on those sources, and whether or not you agree with their assessment, you cannot convince them to change their vote through re-evaluation. By adding another source like this, you add the potential for a vote to be swayed. It's part of how AfD works, consensus. Smile Lee (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the local entertainment section of the Rio Rancho Observer is a local source and adds no weight to the topic's overall notability.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a local source" DOES add weight to a topic's notability. Whether a subject is primarily discussed in particular area, field, or region has nothing to do with notability. From my experience, "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" those simply enhance it. I do know of several secondary sources not listed on this article, and some are not "local". But, again, I'm not interested in myself as an encyclopedic topic. Smile Lee (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the media audience guideline.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, see below. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was in reply to Smile Lee.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize, but this is a consensus debate, and I addressed the concern below. Though I agree with him, "at least regional" is usually good enough, I do see your argument though, it could be considered WP:BARE. These current reliable secondary sources already allow for article growth. Though I have found a few sources that I am trying to find online caches of. Once I do they will be added to the article. They from multiple parts of the country, most are indepth, and from multiple fields. I'm heading to bed though, g'night. I hope I'm getting better at debating this junk. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DunDunDunt: I know that you've put a lot of work into improving the article and contributing to this debate and all credit to you for that. Sometimes though, it is a good idea to drop the stick and move on to another worthwhile cause. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After meticulously reading the list of policies relevant to this discussion, in summary, the subject and topics covered in this article meets the appropriate guidelines.

  1. WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV: "No original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  2. WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
  3. WP:CMC/REF: The Grand Comics Database and Comic Book DB are used and "any specific detail as its details are drawn from the actual comics so it is usually better to use the primary source".
  4. WP:CORPDEPTH and Non Trivial: The three main current secondary sources. Tribune, Observer, and Collins. They are not "sources that simply report meeting times", they are not "business directories", they are not "lists of similar organizations", they are not "schedule"s, they are not "routine communiqués", they are not "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business", they are not "simple statements that a product line", they are not "routine notices of facility openings or closings", they are not "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches", they are not "quotations from an organization's personnel", and they are not a "passing mention".
  5. WP:AUD: Two of the "reliable" secondary sources are regional, and the third is from another region entirely. "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
  6. WP:PRODUCT: This company is notable, and there should not be a dozen stubs related to it's products or services. This article should suffice. "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
  7. Wikipedia:WHYN: This article isn't anywhere near including all sources available, it doesn't even include a complete list of the published works this subject is responsible for. Which can all be found in reliable/accepted secondary and tertiary sources, as well as primary sources. Notability is partially used to make sure article growth is probable, which it is.

User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:Smile Lee, thank you for being helpful during this AfD, and for not hand-holding while still directing me towards the appropriate information. DunDunDunt (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishdarian: Tribune and Observer are reliable sources, and they are both secondary sources. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of 55. They're reliable, but they're trivial mentions that do nothing to establish notability. Ishdarian 06:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ishdarian:They are not trivial mentions, read my "WP:CORPDEPTH" comment above about these two sources. The comic database listings are normal per WP:CMC/REF. And, the web fiction guide is, again, used as a means to quote editorial review, not to quote it's listing on the site in particular. Though I do believe this article has become WP:OVERREF. Which can be fixed, and does not require article deletion. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're trivial. Ishdarian 07:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating your assessment in the face of evidence does not make it correct. My application of the guidelines has been thorough, going to clean the amount of references. Probably categorize them between Works references, and Article references.DunDunDunt (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's all you did too though... Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. Only few out of all other sources are reliable which is not enough to establish notability. Jim Carter 12:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Cartar: another secondary source added, 70% of the available reliable secondary sources aren't incorporated into the article. passes GNG. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep meets all requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:CMC/REF, now I support the Keep side more, after reading other similar AfD discussions, this will more than likely be "No Consensus". This article is new, and requires much more time to incorporate all of the information surrounding the topics. LuigiToeness (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All reference bloat has been removed. @DunDunDunt:, don't bloat references like that. This topic has enough notable sources on its own, but adding too many references signals to experienced editors that there aren't any REAL references. References should only be limited to independent sources. The other important information has been moved to notes, the works references need to be trimmed and organized too, but that's for another day. LuigiToeness (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify which refs are the ones that make it meet the GNG? Sergecross73 msg me 04:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Absolutely and indubitably, good fellow. The article in the Tribune is more than a passing mention, does not simply state what this organization does, it gives secondary sourcing about the United Feature Syndicate fact. The Collins article displays, at least, original academic achievement or interest and adds secondary sourcing for "Our Own Little Coup". The Globe interview shows some external interest in the topic beyond its preliminary field and demonstrates connection to one former Our Own Little Coup member, Mr. Cass, whom appears to have connection to the late CJ Henderson. The Observer makes reference to Mr. Lucero and Ms. Ruiz being caregivers of the Lucero grandparents. I have read in this AfD that CMT and MTV will allow user-submitted bios, which is true, but after a week they are removed after fact checkers review it, Viacom is very careful about reviewing content on their MTV and CMT artist sites; the MTV Life Never Lost article has no bio anymore but the CMT Mario J. Lucero career bio, which adds secondary referencing to Heaven Sent Gaming helping local artists, is still up so they have found it to be worth keeping. All four of the prior add to it meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. The Web Fiction Guide links are clearly from editors on the site, and are not your run-of-the-mill listings from the site, they provide secondary reactions to two of their published works; which on their own wouldn't be worth mentioning, but in this context they provide editorial critical commentary. I'm about to head onto an airplane in a bit, so I won't be on again for a couple days, I look forward to building this article more upon my return. My current understanding is that there are quite a few more physical references to be able go through, that I will be willing to pull up. Can't check for typos so accept my sloppy writing, my plane's about to board, I'm out. LuigiToeness (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell exactly what sources you're talking about, since you didn't link to any in particular, and the article is swamped with unreliable, terrible sources, but looking through the article some:
  • Articles like this or this from "Web Fiction Guide" are neither "significant coverage" or "covering the source at all". They do not go towards notability.
  • The Boston Globe article is a very short interview, that barely even mentions HSG at all.
  • the CMT bio is about a person, not Heaven Sent Gaming, and its a short database entry at that.
If this is the sort of sourcing you're claiming is making the article notable, then you are terribly wrong. Everyone I look up is some sort of combination of unreliable, passing mention, or not about the article subject at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • forgot to add that Mario J. Lucero is one of the topics relevant to the subject of this article. He and Isabel Ruiz are main biographical figures in the history of the subject Heaven Sent Gaming. BeachParadise (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are still all sorts of garbage sources littered throughout the article. You have a long ways to go before you can deem it "corrected". And your comment about the Mario source - this is why we keep saying that you guys don't understand Wikipedia's concept of notability and significant coverage. There's a difference between using a source to cite information, and using it to prove notability. While the source may be okay to cite info about Mario, it doesn't count as a reliable source that works towards proving notability, because it doesn't discuss the topic itself, Heaven Sent Gaming, in detail. The source only discusses a person related to the topic, not the topic itself. It can't be used to prove notability here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reference clearly states that Mario is half of Heaven Sent Gaming. Regardless, notability has nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the various topics covered by the subject. There just needs to be enough verifiable RS to create a non-biased encyclopedic article. I'm going to leave this to the closing admin. It doesn't matter if you think that us "guys" can understand the GNG. Which a few keeps have demonstrated a knowledge of, like Smile Lee whom has been on Wikipedia for quite a while. BeachParadise (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you just described is a textbook example of a trivial, passing mention. Yes, it "clearly states that Mario is part of HSG. And that's it. Like I've said, if this is the sort of "coverage" that this article is hinging on, there's no way its going to meet the WP:GNG. I'd also like to point out that the "Keeps" are not winning anyone over here. Virtually every "Keep" here so far either started editing under their current name/IP in the last few weeks (or days). And the one who isn't, Smile Lee, is the co-owner of the subject of this AFD. Minus Smile, not a single experienced editor has gone for "Keep". Not a coincidence. Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments on socks below. It is so obvious, I didn't bother researching further and just joined in the fun. I'm confident that any competent admin will see this for a sock/meat fest. Text book case: passing mentions only on a trivial topic and lots of new editors with the same battle cry, and already trying to talk up "no consensus to get a default keep. *yawn*. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close this already. Total failure of WP:GNG made even more obvious by the frenetic behavior in this AfD. There are a few trivial mentions in reliable sources, but those are just that: trivial. Everything else is in unreliable sources. Nobody in favor of keeping has articulated a cogent reason for keeping, nor provided any evidence of notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep most delete votes are WP:BIG, WP:MUST, WP:TRIVCOV and WP:ITSLOCAL. In fact the very nomination was WP:GOOGLEHITS. This is rediculous. And the most compelling argument is SPA; have you people ever thought that the people interested in this topic value their privacy and don't like to sign up for accounts. I have a very prominent account on here, but user identity has no weight in these discussions. Someone close this as "no consensus". This argument clearly has no end, as of yet, maybe in several months or in in a year we can revisit it in AfD, until then stop tying up the AfD discussions.174.50.79.228 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)— 174.50.79.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  1. The nomination is sound - they found the topic to be non-notable, and nothing on a Google search was able to convince them otherwise. It doesn't hinge on "GOOGLEHITS", its just shows that he made an effort to follow through on WP:BEFORE - a good thing.
  2. The main argument by deletes are that there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Very sound, valid, policy-based arguments. The article is covered in unreliable/database entry type sourcing, and many of the "Keeps" have no understanding on what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition.
  3. Having a "prominent account" and not using it to !vote "keep" in a deletion discussion makes zero sense on this website. Saying such a thing only further makes you look like yet another SPA who has no grasp Wikipedia or its standards of notability. No one who is familiar with the website would opt to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prominence doesn't win these debates. They aren't to be "won" anyway they are about consensus, not votes. I agree the vast majority of User:174.50.79.228's sentiments. BeachParadise (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC) forgot to sign prior[reply]
I'm not sure who said this, or who they're talking to, but neither of us suggested that "prominence" wins these debates. That wasn't the point either of was making... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said that last, "Prominence doesn't win these debates", comment and forgot to sign. I was using my phone, not an easy device to communicate in AfD discussions. BeachParadise (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An amazing array of "sources" that fail WP:RS in an obvious way, giving us a clear indication of why we have WP:GNG instead of just counting Google hits. I was asked to look at the socking and meat puppetry here out of fear that the closing admin might miss it, but the veil is so fine as to resemble The Emperor's New Clothes. I have no concerns that the closer will see through it without effort and instead, I will participate as a fellow editor. Subject matter fails our criteria of notability in a most spectacular and breathtaking fashion. Their work may very well be good, but "good" doesn't make it notable via the criteria at Wikipedia. It isn't personal, it is just too soon, and no amount of sockpuppetry and friend stacking can change that fact. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note No one on the Keep side of the argument has made an argument that "Their work may very well be good", that has been assumed based on early "excitement" in the AfD by a few newbie editors. There is no "An amazing array of "sources"" either, there are only 12 references (7 of which are individual sources). Another user, User:LuigiToeness, promised to correct the errors in the "works references" as well. I will WP:BEBOLD and do it myself later today. The 7 current main references are enough for notability and I agree with the anonymous "prominent" user, WP:BIG, WP:MUST, WP:TRIVCOV and WP:ITSLOCAL have been the only Deletes I have seen thus far, and none of those arguments hold any water. BeachParadise (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You aren't even reading before you reply. I just said it doesn't pass WP:GNG as all the refs fail WP:RS. All your Wikilinking and blogs don't change that. You don't even understand the very pages you are linking. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read what you've said, and stated my opinion on your assertion, and I disagree with your assessment. This article passes GNG and none of the main seven refs fail RS. I understand what I linked to, I can read English. BeachParadise (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I guess it is up to the closing admin, whom I am happy to entrust the burden. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree there. I will personally be happy to see this debate closed. Its gotten huge. BeachParadise (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with which to establish notability. No matches in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Highbeam; or any new sources from Google Web. Rio Rancho Observer seems like arguably significant RS coverage, but is only one source. The subject's mention in The Boston Globe was incidental, and the Albequerque Tribune coverage was a single paragraph. Agyle (talk) 02:00, 7 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aro Hā Wellness Retreat[edit]

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

Non-notable resort. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Article is self-promotional/COI by single purpose user and lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:15, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 05:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, no significant independent coverage. COI issue as main contributor is closely linked to the subject, the article reads like an advertisement in parts. Cowlibob (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons to soon, probable COI for the author, and not notable (yet at least). Might be worth a footnote in the Glenorchy article NealeFamily (talk) 10:45, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Credit Rating Group[edit]

Universal Credit Rating Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Traditional Chinese)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Simplified Chinese)

I declined a speedy on this article, but I'm nominating it for deletion as it is essentially new and has not had the requisite significant coverage for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable topic. The creation of UCRG is a significant political move headed by the Chinese to redress the percieved imbalance in world credit rating agency ownership (i.e. US and European firms dominate). Chinese references now added to the article and there are plenty more out there.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I've found another source.It seems different from Philg's source in content.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: There are plenty of sources, also mainstream media, as the following source - Antonio nn (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources out there but they don't necessarily need to be added to the article, they just need to exist (which is why I added the two Chinese search templates above).  Philg88 ♦talk 17:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A quick news search turns up significant coverage from major international news organisations. Maybe not the best sort of sources to base an article on as it's not on a news event but certainly enough to establish notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:26, 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 deckertalk 15:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone (album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I contested the PROD as I found a source discussing the album last night, but after going through most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S, I cannot find anything at all about this album. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 contribs 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--According to Billboard and Cashbox this album is not even listed. I believe I found possibly two sources that lead to this title, but one of them goes to a completely different project. This certainly fails the standard required for WP:NALBUMS--Canyouhearmenow 01:49, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Gvelesiani[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Jeremiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie's Mill: Historic Homes and Early Residents[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rennie's Mill: Historic Homes and Early Residents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Article" which, as written, is serving as little more than a directory listing of who used to live at what address on a particular street at various points in history. This is not what an encyclopedia is for — if you could write a properly sourced article about the historic significance of the street itself, that would be one thing, but the fact that "Anastasia Dunn, widow of Michael" lived at 18 (East) Rennie’s Mill Road in 1871, and on and so forth all the way up the road throughout the years, is not the kind of information that such an article should contain. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy The article is simply a directory of people who have lived along Rennie's Mill Road since the mid-19th century. This is a clear-cut violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, Renee's Mill is on the list of historic sites of Canada and likely meets notability requirements. While this doesn't excuse the policy breach, the article's author has shown an interest in revising the article. I believe that userfication is the best solution as it will allow for substantial corrections to the article without keeping it in the mainspace. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per Spirit of Eagle Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise. I am willing to make a revision that would conform to standards--this is my 1st page in wiki. the reason why these listings are of value is the historic legacy, 6 of Newfoundland's prime ministers lived on this street, but too few people, even those who put together the evidence supporting the "historic designation" of many of these homes got the evidence wrong, confusing famous fathers with their sons because they shared the same name. I am really the first person to comb through the original directories and pull out the information relevant for this historic district and show comparisons among houses. Klossoke (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)klossoke[reply]
If you want to save the article, remove the listings of everyone who has ever lived on Rennie’s Mill and find some reliable sources beyond the directories to describe the mill itself (as well as to prove its notability). I would also read Wikipedia:Your first article to get a good feel of what’s required of a Wikipedia article. In the meantime, we could userfy your article. This would take the article out of the main encyclopedia space and make it a user page, which would give you the ability to edit and improve it without fear of deletion. Is this an acceptable outcome to you (because it’s almost certainly going to be deleted if left in the article space as is)? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I vote thus with some regret. This is potentially valid local history, but it has no place ion WP. Possibly userify temporarily to give the creator a chance to take it elsewhere. It is merely non-encyclopedic, rather than being pure rubbish. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, that's my view as well. I imagine that this would be useful for a local history association or website, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but Rennie's Mill is a National Historic Site of Canada. This article is almost certainly notable, its just written in a way that is at odds with Wikipedia policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit of Eagle: Good point. I'd say this is a candidate for WP:NUKEANDPAVE, then. There aren't enough sources present to support the content already there. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no part of this that could be used to make a legit article. --Rob (talk) 09:10, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. In an earlier version, the author blanked the page. Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keezhattingal Sree Subrahmanya swami Temple[edit]

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

Promotional, nigh WP:Patent nonsense, failure of WP:GEOFEAT. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 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. Number 57 11:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Orinyansky[edit]

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

Notability is not proven with independent sources. The article from ru.wiki is just deleted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:G11. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. sources don't show anything that puts him above the line for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 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 merge to Gladiator (2000 film). By and large, consensus seems to be that this shouldn't exist as an independent article, but that portions of it may be valuable if included in the main article. As it stands, however, the primary concern seems to be that it likely violates our policy on avoiding original research. Consensus at the target of the eventual redirect is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of the content should be merged. slakr\ talk / 21:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" is in violation of NPOV policies, as the obvious intent is to attack the accuracy of a work of fiction -- why not list things the film got right? (See WP:COATRACK.) An actual article highlighting aspects the film maker portrayed accurately and those aspects that aren't accurate could be appropriate, but this page is problematic. The article also contains no prose, and comes off as original research -- it looks like someone opened a history textbook and merely pointed out what's "wrong" in the film. Calidum Talk To Me 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Calidum Talk To Me 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nerdcruft. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article: Gladiator is a work of fiction. The [scolarly article cited certainly does not take the inaccuracies particularly seriously.TheLongTone (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the film was criticized by critics and/or historians for its faults, a summary of those highlighted by that criticism is appropriate, as we would do in the case of when film and books they are based off of differ, or in a more pertinent example, Armageddon (1998 film)#Scientific accuracy being a 2 para summary of everything wrong with the film. But have to agree that this is an incredible level of OR, particular when the film does not present itself as an historically accurate presentation like one would expect from a documentary. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect because it can be appropriate to have sub-articles split off from the film article if the amount of real-world coverage is significant. For example, this is an entire book comparing film to history. This has a full chapter comparing film to history. This also has a full chapter. I do agree that the article currently has too much original research, and it should be purged. Following that, it should not be deleted. Depending on the valid content remaining, it can be kept or redirected to the "Historical accuracy" section at the film article. It's highly likely that much more than two paragraphs can be written about the film's historical accuracy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article is notable as reliable sources have discussed it. Unsourced sections and original research can be removed but that's no excuse to delete the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replying to you, but this is more of a general comment. I'm not disputing that sources have covered the topic, or that it doesn't deserve mention at all. My argument is that there is no reason to have this information in a separate, coatrack article. As to fixing the issues with the article, they existed at the time of the last AFD -- in 2009. In the 5+ years since that closed, no one has attempted to fix anything in regards to sourcing or original research. Calidum Talk To Me 02:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How does WP:COATRACK apply? In a nutshell, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." If it has to do with the article title, "Historical accuracy" is just used here as neutral terminology, as it is done in section headings within film articles. It's a roof under which one can report on accurate and/or inaccurate elements of the film. The presentation is messy, to be sure, but I'm opposed to outright deletion because the page history is worth keeping around (and mentioning on the film article's talk page if we redirect this sub-article). While we have a lot of unsourced material here, it would be easy enough to search relevant terms and find out if a particular element (such as military organization) had been discussed by historians. For example, the S.P.Q.R. tattoo passage is unreferenced, but searching for the keywords, I found this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Coatrack is applicable because facts were cherry picked to present a one-sided view of things. (If you still think that it is not applicable, WP:POVFORK would apply, as a wise editor once noted.) And again, the concerns about original research date back at least five years, so forgive me for not believing a well-written, well-sourced article can be written. And even if it could be, I see no reason why a separate article is needed. Calidum Talk To Me 04:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a separate article is not necessarily needed. Cleanup is definitely needed after so many years. What I am suggesting is to preserve the page history so if an editor were to ever work on Gladiator, it would be available for possible reincorporation, following the guidelines. I would say that a sub-article is appropriate if a section in a film article overwhelms the rest of the article. The list of accolades is one such example. Here, I think if the film got a Featured Article treatment, I think a "Historical accuracy" sub-article would be needed, based on the sources I highlighted above, and probably more out there. Would you endorse redirecting as opposed to deleting? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be okay with what you're suggesting as it essentially accomplishes the same thing I want. Calidum Talk To Me 16:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TheLongTone and Masem, would redirecting be an acceptable outcome? We would link to the page history at the film article's talk page for any editors who decide to take on this endeavor. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a partial merge & redirect, it seems an entirely proper topic within the article on the film.TheLongTone (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article title is not searchable so while the redirect makes sense, it's not the best solution. But a history merge might be, as to keep the contributions from here. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The alternative would be to merge back to the article on the film, to which this is properly linked by a "main" template, but to add all this detail to the film article would unbalance it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, most of this detail has to be purged anyway. It is synthesis in the sense that history books stating detail about the period have nothing to do with the film. There are some sources that make the comparison, and these can be used. However, most of the article is not based on these sources, and the "Historical accuracy" section at the film article is considered sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge, no redirect to Gladiator (2000 film). This is worth a paragraph in the main article, despite the detail in the sources. Just like with battles where there are often numerous books, but we boil it down to the encyclopedic. --Bejnar (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what you can A lot is said about the pillars of Wikipedia but if there was a wider goal then that goal would probably have something to do with the promotion of accurate information. Furthermore, if there were a wider interpretation to ignore all rules then that interpretation would probably aim for the promotion of information in any context where it can be achieved. The film industry is a joke and, in my opinion, there is value in any influence that can encourage it to deliver its fantasies from a perspective a little closer to reality. In any borderline decision keep what you can. Gregkaye (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a bit of a coatrack, full of original research. Having a couple of sources that also talk about the inaccuracies doesn't fix the other policy violations present. It would be perfectly fine to have a paragraph talking about the inaccuracies in the film's article (that would be neutral), but the sole purpose of this article is to criticize the film, it is a singular POV. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". While films will never imitate history precisely, their prominence may lead to greater scrutiny. If sources show that most historians find Gladiator historically inaccurate, then it is not POV to cover their scrutiny under this specific topic. (As I mentioned earlier, "Historical accuracy" is being used as neutral terminology.) This particular space can be used for a well-written article. If the current text is too messy but the topic itself valid, we don't have to eradicate the space from memory. We can just redirect to the shorter "Historical accuracy" section at the film article. If someone wants to make the effort to have a sub-article using all the reliable sources commenting on the film, there is material in the page history that can be investigated for that purpose. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the article also covering the points where the film was historically accurate? No? The current article should be named Historical inaccuracy of Gladiator (2000 film), as it is not examining the accuracy as a whole, only the inaccuracies. Except we can't do that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, "Historical accuracy" is being applied as neutral terminology, per WP:FILMHIST. It's like having a "Critical reception" sub-article that doesn't say in its article title what people thought of the film. (And such a sub-article can have mainly positive or negative reviews, depending on if the film was acclaimed or panned.) It's like saying "Comparison to history" when "comparison" implicitly means "comparing and contrasting" to history. Maybe a different article title could be used here, but the assumption shouldn't be that the film will be historically accurate or inaccurate, but that the film will be held up against history. If most historians find it historically inaccurate, then of course the content will be highly critical. There is two groupings of content here -- content that comes from reliable sources that assess the film, and content that comes from editors playing armchair historians in personally comparing film and history. We have too much of the latter, but I think that we have enough sources for the former that a credible sub-article could be had. As I mentioned above, a seemingly original-research bit (no reference) about a tattoo can be researched, and a source found to write about the tattoo in such a credible sub-article. I'm not arguing so much to keep, I feel that redirecting is the better solution here. I just oppose deletion because it amounts to saying, no, you can't have a sub-article like this ever because it "contradicts" the title because it looks at inaccurate items too much more than accurate items. I think it is a plausible outcome if an editor ever makes effort for this sub-topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 25 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article relies heavily on original research, as many of the claims do not have any citation. Overall, this strikes me as way too trivial to justify keeping as a standalone article. That being stated, there are several legitimate sources so a selective merge of sourced content into Gladiator (2000 film)#Historical accuracy is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see people misusing the OR rule all the time, but this time it is particularly egregious, when everything in this article is so clearly capable of being checked for accuracy. It is a historical accuracy article, for freak's sake.
    • "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Able to be attributed. Not "attributed". Please learn the difference. Anarchangel (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not being misused. WP:SYN is what applies here: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This means if sources do not mention the film, they cannot be used in this article about the film. The sources that can be used are the ones that explicitly compare the film to history. Wikipedia reports; it does not perform original research. In addition, such sources unrelated to the film can be indiscriminate per WP:IINFO: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Standard historical sources that are unconnected to the film cannot be contextual and thus have no encyclopedic value. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article as above. I see a lot of primary-sourced material, not a lot of indication that the historicity was that controversial. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to the Historical accuracy section of Gladiator (2000 film). NorthAmerica1000 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's fanboy crap like this that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. Wefihe (talk) 22:33, 6 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 15:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramor United GFC[edit]

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

Non-notable football club and no independent reliable source found. Fails under WP:NFOOTBALL. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 13:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 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 deckertalk 00:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a GFC is a gaelic football club, so WP:NFOOTY wouldnt apply in this case however GNg does, I cant find much in that respect. Murry1975 (talk) 16:55, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying It at Home[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no notable secondary coverage, only blog mentions, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is significant in the fact that not only is it one of the few documentaries on the subject matter, it has circulated quite heavily on social media. A quick Google search of the film's name provides various places it has been circulated to. More so than other documentaries on the subject matter. It also features significant interviewees that have not been documented in such a manner.--98.244.188.177 (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for now per failing WP:NF. It exists. It is spoken of in social media. And it contains interviews with some notables. But without coverage in reliable sources, it fails inclusion criteria. BUT... as this is not a mainstream blockbuster and has so far fallen below the radar, IF User:Yoshi032192 wishes this userfied for a while, I would agree as it may yet receive coverage. It does not (yet) have notability for article space. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. LuigiToeness (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Home Assured Magazine[edit]

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

No independent reliable source found. Fails under WP:GNG WP:N. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 11:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 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 deckertalk 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the above, the person who made the page copied the description almost word-for-word from this site, so a possible WP:COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdfusion (talk • contribs) 02:46, 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Resort Maui[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. looks like an advert. created by someone who went on a spree of creating Four seasons hotel articles so possible conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless we are going to start deleting all the five-star hotels that we have in the past accepted as notable based on extensive coverage recognizing them as being considered among the world's best. The Four Seasons Maui is legitimately considered one of the top hotels in Hawaii and (arguably) in the world. I note that some evidence for this was previously included in the article and was removed with the explanation "tone down promotional material" [36], which is an understandable goal, but the removal may have been overdone in this case. Another more recent example is the 2013 TripAdvisor rankings, covered in USA Today and elsewhere, which listed this as the second best overall hotel in the country.[37] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think trip advisor ratings count as a reliable source for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_June_26&oldid=1142628458"