Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 June 28 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 keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Noemí[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sonia Noemí (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 of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing found via Google. Huon (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems to be a pretty big deal in Puerto Rico for the 1960's era. Article just lacks proper sourcing which is a content issue not cause enough for a deletion. Here are several reliable sources:
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMBd - not a reliable source, Rotten Tomatoes - mere mention of work, same with Amazon. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
El Nuevo Día article is about her book more than her. And Primera Hora is again more about her book than her, it does talk about her son but by these sources you could make an article about her book more than keep hers. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting coverage for your book, as an author, would establish notability so I see nothing wrong with the two sources above. I have zero proficiency in Spanish so looking for sources would be a laborious task for me. but in any case, I also dug up [14] which is from 2011 and has nothing to do with the book. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 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 to A-11 Football League. Note that Chicago Staggs (A11FL), Dallas Wranglers (A11FL), Michigan Panthers (A11FL), and New Jersey Generals (A11FL) were never nominated, and I can not redirect them just like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Bandits (A11FL)[edit]

Tampa Bay Bandits (A11FL) (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 about a proposed team in a proposed football league (the A-11 Football League) does not yet exit and might not ever exist. It's already mentioned in a section in Tampa Bay Bandits, the article about the USFL team.

Right now, that's enough. It's premature to have an article about this version of the team, which at this point exists only as a recycled name and logo.

And, as a side note, I haven't looked for articles about other proposed A11FL teams, but if they're out there, they should also be deleted until / unless it becomes clear that they will actually exist. Zeng8r (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must stay up so that other authors can find the appropriate articles and reference them. Sadly, once a page goes up, it's taken down WAY to quickly before it even has a chance to sprout legs. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other sources to reference; I've looked. The article fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines as there's just no news or info out there about the new Bandits. Since the initial announcement, the only mention of the team has been a single article on tampabay.com announcing that the showcase game was cancelled. The newspaper didn't even bother to put it into its print version, and no other news source seems to have picked it up, either. The team doesn't even have an official website, and the A11FL hasn't updated its own website or its Facebook or Twitter accounts in months.
As a kid, I was a huge fan of the original Bandits, so I was intrigued when I heard about the new version. Sadly, it looks like they might never actually exist. There's simply no there there. Zeng8r (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: These additional articles about A11FL franchises should also be included in this deletion discussion, since they also suffer from the same notability issues. Zeng8r (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to A-11 Football League. It would take an exceptional amount of coverage for a team which has never even played a game to be notable, and I don't see that level of coverage here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect That's a good idea, Chris; I'll officially change my delete vote. A redirect is better, just in case the league really does come to fruition and individual team articles are needed again. Zeng8r (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect All - These types of startup sports leagues will invariably announce a bunch of team, but until they start playing, there's no guarantee any of them will make it to launch day (or any guarantee the league itself will make it to launch day). -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all. This article subject and the related A-11 team articles currently do not satisfy the notability requirements for an organization. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - An obvious call for a prospective future league. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 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 02:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Philbin[edit]

John Philbin (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)

Primary sourced BLP with weak notability claim. Fails WP:ENT (does not have two major roles, North Shore might be significant). Fails WP:GNG (lacks independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom, found this maybe reliable source [15] but nothing else, no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced. I deleted it as a PROD, but it was later disputed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He does not have a substantial body of work, nor is there coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet any standards of notability that warrants its retention.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:21, 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 no consensus. SpinningSpark 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal descendants of John William Friso[edit]

Royal descendants of John William Friso (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)

Despite the addition of sources since it was originally deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal descendants of John William Friso, Prince of Orange, this article still seems like original research to me and violates of Wikipedia policies against creating genealogical database. The sources are also just other genealogical sites sourcing the ancestry and relation of the immediate people in each sections and are unreliable sources for most serious articles. It just seems a hodgepodge of unreliable sources trying to validate an original research not found in actual reliable sources. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete – I guess there would be one person who would find this useful, but, seeing as how this was recreated with a slightly different title (probably not to alarm CSD people) and is pretty much the same (albeit, as you said, more sourcing), I would lean toward deletion. United States Man (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like a comprehensive list and that some effort and sources have been added. I would address the possible original research issues instead of deleting it altogether. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:18, 11 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 08:19, 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, ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the claims made in the article are accurate, it is not clear why this is a notable topic deserving of coverage in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is notable as it is a major topic for royal genealogists. For instance, we have Descendants of Charles I of England, and more specifically related to this article, Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (listify). I ascribe to the JPL view that this is a topic that doesn't really require an article. But Carrite's suggestion of a list seems sensible. I imagine the other articles provided as examples by Presidentman could probably be (quite effectively) listified also. The article is effectively a list anyway, just without nice table formatting. I wonder if that would (at least in part) satisfy some of those opining for deletion? St★lwart111 00:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Helmy Mendoza[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator (who probably has a conflict of interest) without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 17:11, 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2014. j⚛e deckertalk 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Stefanik[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elise Stefanik (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 fails WP:POLITICIAN. She's a candidate who has never held elective office. She does not have sufficient notability outside of her campaign. This article should therefore be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2014. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do as recommended above. If one day she holds a notable post then we may write an article about her. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates; unless you can verifiably prove that a person had already established enough notability to qualify for an article before they became a candidate, they do not qualify for an article on here until they win the election. No prejudice against recreation if she wins in November, but she's not entitled to keep an article on here as things currently stand. Delete or redirect per nom. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the fact that she won her primary and is the candidate of a major party for a congressional election is demonstration of sufficient notability. The article should stay.CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability rules explicitly say that merely being a candidate in an election that the person hasn't won yet isn't a valid claim of notability by itself. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and the test of whether or not someone belongs in an encyclopedia is whether readers might still need information about this person five or ten or fifty or a hundred years from now — and in nearly all cases a politician has to win election to a notable office, not just run for one, to pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 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 no consensus. There seems to be agreement that the article needs improving, but AFD is not the place for that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial[edit]

Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial (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)

Intersection between a technological gadget and a human biological function does not scream notability. Perhaps if this was titled about the intersection of many technologies with breastfeeding this article would have a chance, but to sub-sub-sub specialize in such a odd intersection of subjects suggests that this is not notable outside one trial (of only 5 mothers). I note that the Breastfeeding article has no specific section about technology so this doesn't make sense as a valid spinout from that. When I PRODed the page, the primary author deleted the PROD and personally attacked me for exercising a judgement call regarding the notability of this trial. I also observe that the editor who has been advocating for this article, Smallworldsocial, is the one who is sponsoring the trial. This raises in my mind significant problems with WP:COI/WP:ADVERT/WP:NOTPROMO. Article had been declined multiple times while still in AFC with significant comments expressing concern about the notability of this trial program. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Smallworldsocial hard redirects to Julie345 so we have an editor who executed a rename to attempt to bypass the COI restrictions by disguisising their agenda while at the same time maintaining 2 user accounts editing in the same subject area. Xeno as the renaming admin, would it be best to hard block the original name so that this unintentional flub in WP:SOCK rules (assuming good faith) is not repeated? Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems to be a mean approach. AfD isn't a place to discuss how to deal with a conflict of interest. Many users have a COI and there's nowhere that suggests they should be automatically blocked. New editors who choose a company name are routinely asked to change it. This author has changed it, so well done on their part for complying.
On the question of what to do with the article, well, I was surprised it was moved from AfC in the first place. The trials were widely reported across the globe in mainstream media but there was no consensus anywhere (even amongst the organisers) as to what the trials were called. Usually a permutation of words using "Google Glass" and "Breastfeeding". FWIW my instinct is that the topic meets WP:GNG but the title of the article needs improving/interrogating. NB the Gold Questar Award was made to the "Breastfeeding with Google Glass App" and in my mind the trials were a process of developing this app. Sionk (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sionk It has been my understanding that COI (and subsequently the Non-Neutral Point of View) is a valid argument to introduce at AFD as a user who has a COI heavily promoting a article is grounds for carefully combing over it for the above mentioned reasons (COI/Advert/NOTPROMO). If the editor had stayed with the Julie345 account, I'd have never known that they were originally named Smallworldsocial and connected the dots with respect to Conflict of Interest. But they didn't and actively took the action of registering the old name back after the original rename and then using the old username to edit the article and talk page. While I'm willing to AGF on this sequence of flubs, I'm asking the admin who did the original rename to hard lock out the old username. Hasteur (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. She's changed back to Smallworldsocial!! I nom'd Madeline Sands for AfD, so am aware of their single purpose here. Sionk (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The account Smallworldsocial appears to have started creating things back in 2010 (Special:Log/Julie345). On May 20th, it appears Xeno executed a WP:CHU request (Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple/Archive161#Smallworldsocial_.E2.86.92_Julie345) only to have the Smallworldsocial user come back when they logged into enwiki the very next day while signed into the Unified login (Special:CentralAuth/Smallworldsocial). Hasteur (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common and usually not intentional socking. With cookies and SUL, the old name sometimes gets automatically recreated and the user does not realize their new name is ready. Ask them to stop editing with the old name and use the new name. Softblock the old name if absolutely necessary. No comment on the article or behavioural issues. –xenotalk 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete After closely inspecting the facts put forward by user "Hasteur", It seems his claims are totally legitimate, "its a brilliant catch by user Hasteur". The user account/accounts in concern is a clear WP:SPA, violating Wikipedia norms WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:SOAPBOX to name a few, The strategy of the user account/accounts, seems to be "getting lucky" playing Russian roulette, but not this time. More than enough evidence is provided by user "Hasteur" to prove his point. Science.Warrior (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject meets notability guidelines as there is extensive coverage in RS. Having a COI is not a valid reason for deletion if the content itself is neutral or neutral enough to easily be fixed, which is the case here. The vast majority of AfCs are submitted by users with COIs - indeed using AfC is the best way for a COI accounts to create an article. This is considered acceptable behavior. (They should be instructed not to edit the article now that it is mainspace though, as that is highly discouraged.) A notable subject is a notable subject, a COI does not change that. Furthermore, there was no attempt to hide anything by Smallworldsocial/Julie345 - just a necessary user name change mandated by username policy and an unfortunate, probably accidental, use of the old account after the new user name was created. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect ThaddeusB, you are mistaken on several points. This subject isn't notable. What about Occulus Rift Breastfeeding app trial, Breastfeeding with Skype, Breastfeeding on webcam? The entire trial is 5 mothers. To put it in the context of a real clinical trial, would we have a article about a clinical trial for an antidepressant that only had 5 subjects in the trial? Second, while the way for a COI user to propose a article that they have personal involvement is through AFC, the moving out from AFC after it had been declined into mainspace indicates either a misundersanding of the COI policy or a willful attempt to conceal the connection between the editor and the subject. I don't think it's notable and based on the fact that the sources can't agree what to call it indicates that the subject is not yet notable. Think carefully, because if we allow this, we potentially open the door for a great many initiatives in pilot program status being articles here. Hasteur (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many errors in your response:
  1. Whether those other subjects are notable or not is completely irrelevant (also, a redlink proves nothing as far as notability)
  2. Notability is not determined by importance, but rather RS coverage, so the argument about 5 mothers is irrelevant
  3. The article was moved to mainspace by experienced reviewer Timtrent, not the page's author. After you declined it, Julie345 addressed your concerns and resubmit it. That is a 100% proper action, a desirable action even, not even remotely a "willful attempt to conceal the connection between the editor and the subject". I don't know why you insist on pushing the COI angle, but if you must do it at least get the facts straight. As it is, you are way off base with your accusations. While I'm sure Smallworldsocial/Julie345 has a conflict of interest, he/she has done nothing that indicates an intent to abuse.
  4. The fact that RS don't use a consistent name for the app, indicates it doesn't have a name, not that it is non-notable. We have MANY articles on events and things with no name; indeed, we even have guidelines on how to name such articles.
The only relevant question is does this app have enough RS coverage to indicate notability. Based on the 24 sources in the article, at least half of which are both reliable and significant, the answer is yes. When the app is named then of course this article will be renamed. It's not like I'm arguing the trial should have its own article once the app is out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename "Breastfeeding with Google Glass app", per my above comments. The article is somewhat promotional and, perhaps, excessive in its detail. However, I'm surprised at the argument that this trial wasn't notable. It was internationally reported in detail in mainstream news outlets. Also on the basis of countering systematic bias on Wikipedia against 'female-interest' subject areas, this app development deserves a place here. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wasn't particularly enamoured of the quality of the article when I accepted it, WP:AFC provides an environment intended to rip away WP:COI. I viewed it as essentially free of COI. COI accusations start at acceptance, but AfD is not the place to handle COI. I accepted the article on the basis that it met our acceptance criteria. I hoped at least that it would be edited and improved, not just nominated to be torn down. It is good enough to survive, and to be improved. It passes WP:GNG, many of the references are acceptable. Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am astonished by the arguments for keeping... You do realize that this "Trial" is only 5 mothers and ~10 "support staff". Essentially we're talking about a single classroom, and you're arguing for the notability of this? This would be like giving a Wikipedia article to every single university research department because they happened to be very good at getting their name out there. Even though we don't like to say that an individual AfD has no bearing on future ones, opening this can of worms is only going to lead to trouble. Hasteur (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're clutching at straws a bit now. You're not seriously suggesting the participants were sitting together in a small room for two months with their boobs out :) And I don't really understand why "trial" is in quotes. Why would it win an award if it wasn't valid? Are you saying we should delete all articles about people, companies and events that are "very good" at publicising themselves. Publicity is one of the main bases of general notability. Sionk (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by RS coverage, not what we think about the importance of a subject. We do this precisely to avoid subjective arguments like the ones you (Hasteur) are making. As far as precedent, yes any company/product/person that manages to get dozens of RS to cover it in depth is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't understand the passion about deletion. It's a fairly unspecial article about a fairly unspecial entity that happens to meet WP:GNG because it has valid referencing. I'm defending it precisely because it meets WP:GNG. I find the technology pointlessly annoying and I don't lactate, so I have no interest in breastfeeding. Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Very ironical, how does this article meets WP:GNG? its a trial project and a fellow wikipedian (user Hasteur) debunked the very keen attempt for WP:Promotion by the people who have direct involvement in the app project. User Hasteur have provided more than enough valid reasoning for AFD. The article clearly falls in category WP:Promotion WP:SOAPBOX. Yes its right that AFD is not how a WP:COI should be handled, but this article violates not one or two but every policy known under WP:COI including WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:SELFCITE, WP:PAY. Now i doubt this could be a WP:NOPR support by the editors defending to keep the article. What surprise me the most is that the last comment on the AFD page was by user "xeno" at 12:01 on 28 June 2014, but after my "strong delete" vote on AFD the article got three "Keep" votes within hours! This AFD needs to be seen by trusted Wikipedia admins. I can surely foresee something fishy going on around here Science.Warrior (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Hasteur's arguments have been proven FALSE. He didn't "debunk" anything and his accusations of improper behavior are flat out false. And your implication of meat puppetry or worse by myself (a "trusted admin" with 32k edits since 2008), Trimtent (=Fiddle Faddle, 44k edits since 2006), and Sionk (35k edits since 2008) is WAY out of line. I suggest you apologize immediately. Sionk commented on June 27, well before you. I saw this by chance on July 3 and by using Timtrent's name in my comment he was informed about this and commented. (Since he promoted the article to mainspace, he should have been informed of the discussion from the beginning. If Hasteur had looked at the article history instead of assuming incorrectly that Julie345 had moved the article to mainspace, he could have avoided making such incorrect accusations in this AfD.)
There is no conspiracy - just three experienced users who (gasp) understand policy regarding notability. BTW, while xeno ("a trusted admin"+bureaucrat with 89k edits since 2006) didn't comment on the article he did "debunk" the theory that Smallworldsocial/Julie345 had acted improperly. AfC is the proper venue for COI creation of article - if you don't like that then try to get policy changed to forbid such creations. (As it is, even COI creation in mainspace is not forbidden.) Until that time, you have no actual policy-backed argument to make - just a I don't think is should be notable non-argument. Again, an independent reviewer (Timtrent) correctly assessed that the article was neutral enough and subject notable enough to move it to mainspace. The only thing anyone has done improper is your assumption of bad faith against 3 very experienced editors. The article is way way short of unfixable advertising - the actual standard for deleting promotional articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User ThaddeusB i have not accused anyone or made a assumption of bad faith, making gossips through grapevine. I have stated the policy WP:NOPR straight forward. It happens that's why the policy have been made, I will advise you to not to take it personally, our goal as a wikepedian is to double check that something like This don't happen and as you stated "Hasteur's arguments have been proven FALSE. He didn't debunk anything and his accusations of improper behavior are flat out false" its not on you to decide, leave that decision for other admins. I will also advise you quit boasting about your edit counts, doing so will not provide notability to the article. Its not about personal attacks as you taking it, its about being right and wrong, This article is a crystal clear example of using Wikipedia as a tool for self promotion. Science.Warrior (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you most certainly have implied myself and two other experienced users have colluded or otherwise acted improperly: "after my 'strong delete' vote on AFD the article got three 'Keep' votes within hours! This AFD needs to be seen by trusted Wikipedia admins. I can surely foresee something fishy going on around here". And yes, I very much am going to take it personally when someone levels very serious accusations against me. You are the one who brought experience into it by calling for "trusted admins" to intervene, implying those of us who commented were not experienced or neutral - that is the reason I mentioned the edit counts. Of course my editing does not impart notability. Reliable source coverage imparts notability. This subject has it, no matter how strongly you wish it didn't.
It is fact that Hasteur's argument was debunked. He claimed the article was moved to mainspace by Julie345. That is false. It is not a matter of opinion - anyone can verify this by looking at the article history. It is also a fact that Julie345 did violate NOPR. She used Articles for Creation and attempted to create a neutral article, not an ad. The article was then accepted as sufficiently neutral by a third party with a ton of experience in AfC. Thus the article landed in mainspace through 100% proper means. If you want policy to say an article should be deleted if it was created through a COI, then you need to get consensus for policy to say that. At current, it doesn't. Policy says no ads and no non-notable subjects. This article is not remotely an ad and is clearly notable (as defined by policy no notability, not opinion). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have given the article a good copyedit. While there were a few sentences somewhat promotional (now fixed), it was already far from reading as an ad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article seems to be a medium of advertising, Its seems like the app developers are using Wikipedia article itself to gain notability, Going on reference number 25 retrieved from "dailymail" states "For now, the $1,500 price tag on a pair of Google Glasses will restrict the app'd user-ship to only wealthy families". So basically the app will probably wont make it to general public soon enough, I wonder how come the article on this app gets notability, as the app itself is beyond the reach of general public. Science.Warrior (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, please try to make relevant policy-based arguments. You do realize that the $1500 price is for Google Glass, not this app right? Furthermore, price is absolutely irrelevant to notability. For the sixth(?) time, notability is based solely on level of reliable source coverage. This app has achieved notability based on the coverage. Its as simple as that.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant) (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 deleted as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) 3 October 2010, then later userfied by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Article was un-deleted following Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant) 8 June 2014. Article still fails to meet WP:BLP1E, and first page of Google search of "tom walsh jeopardy" does not return WP:SIGCOV of subject. Within the Google results:

  • CBS News video is profiling Ken Jennings, and has some comments by Walsh peppered within, but the topic of the story is Jennings.
  • WorldMag article subject is Jennings, and happens to be written by Walsh, but Walsh being the author of this article does not provide criteria for him to meet WP:AUTHOR.
  • Fox News article subject is Jennings, and mentions Walsh in passing as a previous record holder.
  • Washington Post article profiles Walsh as the man whose record was surpassed by Jennings and contains elements from an interview with Walsh, but as WP:BLP1E states, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article", and Walsh is a person covered "only in the context of a single event", is someone who "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and his being a Jeopardy! champion was an "event [that was] not significant". AldezD (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic game show cruft. At best this is a case of BLP-1E. Ken Jennings is about the only "former Jeopardy! contestant" of sufficient stature to sustain an encyclopedic BLP. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There does not seem to be any deletion rationale given by the proposer. Whether the article should be merged or not is an issue for talk page discussions, not AfD. Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Restaurant Karel V[edit]

Grand Restaurant Karel V (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)

Instead of waiting till this article is destroyed by a merger, I suggest to remove it beforehand. The merge proposal of this article suggest that this Michelin starred restaurant is not notable enough for a place on its own and should better by added to a later written, partly double (Duitse Huis, this article) and in an advertising style written article. The Banner talk 19:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already consensus to merge this on the talk page of Talk:Grand Hotel Karel V, so an AFD is unnecessary. The nominator was the original creator of the article and even admits to bringing this here to escape consensus elsewhere. I'd suggest a good admin to close this as a bad faith nom. I have supported a merger but that's if no more info can be added actually about the restaurant. I know that some of the Dorchester's restaurants are notable in their own right and this might be too if it is well documented and made to resemble a restaurant article with decent reviews and info about the cuisine. In its present condition (with the history being irrelevant to the actual restuarant) it would be best to merge. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus between you and your friends, yes. Let us wait what the rest of the world thinks. The Banner talk 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, anybody who suggested a merge is a very experienced editor in their own right and would never support or oppose something they didn't actually agree with. In fact I'd say they're likely to be representative of what most other regulars would agree with. I've said that if you expand this with info on the cuisine and restaurant reviews it would be worth keeping in its own right. Contrary to what you think, I'm thinking in terms of what is more convenient for our readers and providing knowledge, not doing this out of some vendetta which you seem to think it's all about. As it is it barely has a few lines about the actual restaurant and the history info is redundant to the Duis article. Merging those few lines isn't problematic, but if you write a well researched entry with details on cuisine and reviews then it would be too bloated to merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The outstanding proposal to merge the article into Grand Hotel Karel V seems likely to be accepted, in which case this title will be made a redirect to that article. Leaving the title as a redirect to a section in the parent article is more useful to readers than removing the title. If more information emerges about the restaurant than can reasonably be covered in the parent hotel article, the redirect can easily be turned back into a separate article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per Aymatth2 above - Grand Hotel Karel V even has a restaurants subcategory already, so it would be of no difficulty at all to make the merge. Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 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. and WP:SALT. j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jem Star[edit]

The Jem Star (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)

Self-published book, with no references -- or even a suggestion -- of real-world notice. Calton | Talk 18:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This honestly should have been salted after the first three times it was re-created back in 2008. I can't find anything to show that this self-published book is ultimately notable. Given that Calton's PROD was removed with the accusation that it (adding the PROD) was vandalism, I'd wager that when this is deleted (and it's a when, not an if) it would just be re-created once again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this I mean that the random IP removing the PROD as "vandalism" shows that someone is watching the article and that odds are that the same person will likely make an account and re-add the article at some point in time, so salting it would be a good pre-emptive measure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish this book as notable. none whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Little coverage at all, RS or not, and most of that is on sales sites. Utterly non-notable. And should be salted per Tokyogirl79. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:40, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Augustus Worthington[edit]

Erasmus Augustus Worthington (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 plausible-looking article has been here for six years, but it is a hoax. Thanks and credit to new contributor GriffithKendall (talk) who has provided a detailed demolition on the article talk page, supported by Nicknack009 (talk). To their work, I would add that Worthington's supposed 1875 autobiography "My Life in Art" is not found in either Worldcat or Google Books, but his supposed photograph is found here and is actually a picture of one John Tregerthen Short. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as a hoax. I had read the discussion on the article's talk page and was awaiting its arrival to AfD. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is reliable, the individual would seem to have existed, although that is certainly an impressive demolition job, & given the demonstrable bogus nature of the DNB reference & lack of any sources I say Delete, not notable. TheLongTone (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how reliable the Victorian Web is, and there doesn't seem to be any way to look at the history of its articles. I notice that Worthington does not appear in their list of illustrators. It seems to me possible that Pemberton08 (talk), the author of this article, managed to insert the words about Worthington. He certainly spammed references industriously within Wikipedia (which I will clean out once this is deleted), and he also did post about "Worthington" outside Wikipedia, e.g. here where he has added the image. Also, the article has been in WP since 2008, and disinformation flows regrettably fast from WP into the rest of the web. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a search of books on Victorian illustrators brings up nothing. An artist with a resume like the one claimed for Worthington would surely be mentioned somewhere. Ewulp (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. If we can't verify him, he fails [[WP:GNG}]. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 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. Without prejudice to a redirect to Hillsong Music Australia j⚛e deckertalk 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man of Sorrows (Hillsong song)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & redirect to Hillsong Music Australia. Not independently notable. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSIC, as either a song or a recording (especially since recording is just GNG). --Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't particularly want to judge Australia by the same standards as the massive US Christian Music machine, but honestly not sure if almost any of Hillsong's output meets conventional notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some have charted quite well in Australia and the US (made the Billboard 200) and they have more than one album that has achieved gold or higher status in one or both of those markets. This album isn't one of them, but there presently about 25 more up for AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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 was that the film's available sources did not reach WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 18:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Place Off the Edgware Road[edit]

A Little Place Off the Edgware Road (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)

Is a short film with no references or reasons for notability. Almost non existant information as well. Youngdrake (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been expanded but has not become anymore notable. --Youngdrake (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 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)
(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 Okay... the article has now been further addressed per MOS:FILM and sources added, but while it received very limited non-independent coverage while in production, it seems to have had none after release. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:30, 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 02:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Incident Tracker[edit]

Support Incident Tracker (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 meet WP:PRODUCT. I see a lot of entries in blogs (like http://sitracker.wordpress.com/) and at paid directories (like help-desk-software.findthebest.com/l/18/Support-Incident-Tracker) and the occasional other source (like helpdesksurvival.com/support-incident-tracker-history.html) but if someone wants to research software like this, that's where they'll be drawn to. Wikipedia is not a link farm; it's a collection of notable subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Debian_Project_Leader#Project_leaders. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Collins (programmer)[edit]

Ben Collins (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_-_Rescue_list#Ben_Collins_.28programmer.29 Lentower (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. There are a few passing mentions in primary sources but a complete lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. The article has been tagged with a notability warning for over a year and nothing has changed. A lone discussion on the Talk page from 2 years ago concludes that the subject is not notable. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No significant coverage found in the primary sources. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 12:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Does not appear to be an encyclopedically notable person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person has done significant work in notable projects & works. WP:Creative applies. Unclear if adequate research has been done with off-line paper sources, e.g. at a research university's libraries. Unclear if adequate research has been done on-line, including his full first name and various qualifying keywords, (which is why I've added two additional Find Sources at the top of this article). Lentower (talk) 16:18, 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, ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two elected positions are nothing more than the "Keep the lights on" functionality a janitor can do. No substantial arguments for WP:CREATIVE I see apply to this. Not seeing a significant justification that would put him on par with Hans Reiser or Linus Torvalds (yes I know WP:OSE is a bad justification, but it's useful to compare similar articles). Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Running a large project over the Internet is not just "Keeping the lights on". It certainly takes much more skill than being a janitor.
In this case, Debian is a large project for a major variant of Linux being used by many people. Project management is also harder with volunteers. The programmers who volunteer on Debian are often immature with substantial issues that need to be resolved to help them be productive. So being Debian Project Leader needs many skills: including those of an excellent psychologist, a deep understanding of complex technical issues, and being able to motivate difficult people to improve Debian with the skills of a top-notch manager.
One doesn't have to be as famous as Reiser or Torvalds to be notable enough for a WP article. Lentower (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per other user "A.Minkowiski" and user "Hasteur", The article clearly does not meet WP:BIO described standards, going forward to user "Chris Bainbridge" comment on AFD nomination seems valid enough to concur with the deletion of the article. Science.Warrior (talk) 16:40, 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) 18:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Living[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-noteworthy product, lacks multiple reliable sources about the topic to sustain an article. Only independent third-party source is a local news article about a lawsuit. Company that produces the product is also nonnoteworthy, comes across more as an attack page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This topic meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and then some. Requirements for "Significant coverage," "Reliability," and "Independent of the Subject," have all been met. The sources, as listed on the article, are from multiple United States government websites and multiple independent news sources. The claim that the subject "lacks multiple reliable sources" is entirely unfounded. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. There are literally 8 additional independent sources other than the lawsuit news article linked throughout. The article is not an attack page as it provides not only government and independently sourced information about the company, but also includes information about the MLM product offerings of the company. For comparison, consider the Wikipedia pages for Joseph Mercola, DXN_(Brand), Scentsy, and anything linked from Category:Multi-level_marketing_companies. Young Living exceeds the average standards and sources (in both quality and quantity) for the majority of MLM pages on Wikipedia. Finally, if anyone believes an article with this quality of sources and this sheer number of independent sources needs work, it better benefits Wikipedia for that user to Be Bold and improve the article, rather than recommend an excellent beginning to an important article for deletion. Removing bias, adding sources, and revision are all time-honored Wikipedia traditions for improving articles rather than deleting them. One of those remedies should be considered first, particularly in light of the dozens of other, poorer MLM company articles (and stubs) on Wikipedia. (EDIT: re-read AfD requirements, so added "keep" up aboveChristopher Lotito (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Author of this article has been involved in canvassing posting notices at the talk pages of several users with a request to advocate this article. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, I had no idea canvassing was a thing and I would never ask anyone to vote against policy or their conscience.Christopher Lotito (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Changed my vote, see below.) Delete. I came here thinking it would be fairly easy to find good sources for a 'keep' result but I was wrong. The FDA and OSHA links are primary source reports, not sifted through a WP:SECONDARY observer. The Young Living brand has not been the subject of any in-depth coverage in non-partisan sources. Even the scientific paper has two authors who work for Young Living. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this explanation about secondary sources, Binksternet. I am still working to find sources which will be suitable, it seems a shame to delete the entire article when other options might exist. I've added 2 additional sources. I hope I am not out of line responding here.Christopher Lotito (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would anyone consider withdrawing their "delete" now that additional sources and material have been added? I presume I'm allowed to ask that.Christopher Lotito (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my list of additional sources (not sure when you looked at the article): 1-(book)Quick Reference Guide for Essential Oils, 2-(book) Road to Recovery from Parkinson's Disease, 3-(newspaper)The Epoch Times- 5 ways to... 4-(magazine) Conde Nast Traveler Healthy Traveler Tips, 5-(journal)Journal of Essential Oil Research, 6-Harvard Article at harvard.edu, 16 is a newspaper, and 17 is a trade news publication. All of these appear independent, there is no evidence that any of these are paid for by the company. I presume they are valid secondary sources. That's 8 additional sources, 7 if no one likes the Harvard.edu link.Christopher Lotito (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed sources 3 and 4, with an explanation here: Talk:Young Living. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grayfell, does that mean that you found the other 5 sources noted above acceptable?Christopher Lotito (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I said on the talk page, I'm still forming an opinion. The two I removed just seemed like clear-cut undue and medrs problems which seemed egregious enough to remove immediately. If the article survives, the 2001 study and the student paper look to me like they'll need to go as well. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, though. Grayfell (talk) 06:13, 20 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! 07:54, 26 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, ‑Scottywong| chat _ 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I see significant coverage in
    • Adrian, Rhonda. "Young Living Essential Oils offer many benefits", The Mountaineer [Rocky Mountain House, Alta] 07 Jan 2014: C3.
    • "Young Living Essential Oils; "Massaging Topical Oils Applicator" in Patent Application Approval Process", Politics & Government Week (Jul 3, 2014): 2169.
    • Rickard, Mary. "The sweet smell of good health: Essential oils may be able to treat many ailments", News Gazette [Champaign, Ill] 25 Feb 2005: D-1 D-3.
    • I'm sorry but they don't appear to be available online. I found them in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add, the Mountaineer article is 614 words, the Politics & Government Week one is 1566, and the News Gazette one is 1336 but only two paragraphs of it deal with "Young Living" directly. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you summarize what the articles say? To be honest, Young Living Essential Oils offer many benefits and The sweet smell of good health: Essential oils may be able to treat many ailments sound more like advertisements than news articles, at least from their titles (especially the first one). It would be useful if we had more to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one in The Mountaineer actually does read as rather promotional, and looks to be the case of a small-town newspaper supporting a local practitioner of aromatherapy etc. In Politics & Government Week, the article is identified as being written by "News Reporter–Staff News Editor at Politics & Government Week" (a NewsRx publication) although a portion of it directly quotes the patent application. The News Gazette article discusses the purported health benefits of essential oils and aromatherapy, beginning with a discussion of human's capacity to distinguish smells (Axel and Buck's work), discusses a survey of local physicians and chiropractors about their interest in "therapeutic qualities of essential oils", some interviews with users and practitioners, some other aromatherapy research, and some discussion of the "raindrop technique" and its origins from Young Living. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (see keep reasoning below) - I found a television news broadcast by FOX News (which I am not entirely certain I can call a "reliable source", but am willing to treat it as an impartial one here) which features the Christian women of Joshua House in Stafford, TX who own and run the business that produces this product, though the news broadcast never actually mentions the words "Young Living" in it, only the words "essential oils" (all of which, in the broadcast, are clearly marked Young Living Essential Oils). If the spot had somehow been a paid-for piece, it would have mentioned the product by name, which it did not. Another FOX news piece (also originally a television spot, it looks like, this time from Oklahoma City) about essential oils that mentions Young Living in passing once. According to this, the founder may be a quack, but that is neither here nor there. Next was a press release in the Fort Francis Times (not independent, can't be used), then a passing mention in an eMissourian article about a local farmer's market, and then a mention in the Colchester Calendar of the Truro Daily News about the Truro Christian Women's Club presentation on the oils at a continental breakfast at Bible Hill (along with crochet meetings, seniors' dances, quilt show, and a bluegrass festival). To me, this does not appear to add up to bona fide notability, though I think it may be a borderline case against it (the first of the two FOX News broadcasts is the <cringe> best evidence I see of potential notability). I am going to have another look at the article's references as they currently stand, and will revise my vote if what I review there changes my mind. Also: Christopher Lotito, do you have any COI for this article? If so, you should reveal that immediately so that it can be taken into consideration. It will not result in the article's automatic deletion, but it should not be concealed from the discussion; you talk about this subject as though you are personally invested in it somehow. If so, can you talk a little about how? KDS4444Talk 00:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just switched my vote from a delete to keep. I just read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune, which is a pretty major newspaper in a pretty major city: it discusses the subject of the article specifically and in relation to a lawsuit with another essential oil company. This looks now like clear evidence of notability to me (surpassing all mentions in FOX News broadcasts, at last!) KDS4444Talk 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the details of that article, such as its name, author and date? Even better would be a link. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's this article, @Binksternet:which is about a lawsuit and not the company. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any Conflict of Interest, or relationship whatsoever, regarding this article. I've edited Joseph Mercola (another alternative medicine practitioner) previously and when I came across the news coverage of Young Living, I believed that it merited its own article.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There are a number of weak arguments here, those on the "keep" side (of the "other articles exist" and "closely related to a famous person" variety) have been duly called out in the discussion. But there are fallacies on the "delete" side as well, some examples:

  • "Just because someone has received coverage does not automatically make them notable enough to warrant an article" did not consider why the coverage was insufficient in this case. "A does not imply B. A. Therefore not B" is not logically sound.
  • " If she were to be the next Queen or something of importance I'd understand .... but she's not" is denying the antecedent (If Lopes is the next queen, then she is notable. Lopes is not the next queen. Therefore Lopes is not notable).

WP:NOTINHERITED, which is a section of an essay (not a policy), means relation to a clearly notable person is insufficient to establish notability. On the other hand it does not mean that relation to a notable person invalidates the notability derived from coverage otherwise. It is less clear whether coverage that is caused by such a relation is sufficient or not. Andrew Davidson has pointed out the coverage in BBC and Newsweek, an argument that has merit. The fact that there has also been "gossipy trash magazine" coverage as pointed out by Lankiveil does not invalidate whatever good sources may be there.

On balance, I see no consensus for deletion here and I don't think either side has produced strong enough arguments to call this a "keep" or "delete" based on any policy either. Merging may still be discussed on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lopes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Laura Lopes (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 real independant notability, only claim to notability is being stepdaughter of the Prince of Wales. TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As ridiculous as I personally find Brittish Royalty, Their obsession in general and the coverage Ms. Lopes seems to indicate notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in effect you are saying that in the case of the British Royal Family WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply?. There is nothing of interest to say about this person, she merely merits a mention in the article on her mother.TheLongTone (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not even kind of what I am saying. She clearly has coverage from WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources that prove her notability. I would not consider her important enough to write about but those sources clearly do and as they meet all wikipedia standards for for reliabilty and editoral oversight they matter.. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources do not establish her notability, since they all seem to be primarily articles about someone else. There really does not seem to be any substantial, in depth coverage of her.TheLongTone (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If she were to be the next Queen or something of importance I'd understand .... but she's not. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this article being nominated for deletion? Her article is created because of her relation to a famous person (her mother) and also her relation to the astor family. there is no need to delete this article...thousands have been created on Wikipedia and they stay, this should stay. Also if you delete this article because she wont be queen, then you have to delete, lets say the Duchess of Cambridge's sister, Pippa and brother James article too, their sister will be queen not them.(Monkelese (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Her article is created because of her relation to a famous person ": see WP:NOTINHERITED. For the others, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. She attracts little coverage, and what there is is solely because of who her mother is now married to.TheLongTone (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly states that "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house." --Soman (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say by those rules that Camilla is notable but the daughter is not.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you will also be deleting the duchess of cambridges sister and brother's page too? they seem to be in the same page as Camilla's daughter. i see no reason for this article to be deleted, many articles including articles of dead people do not receive coverage at all, but they remain. (Monkelese (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the Duchess of Cambridge is a member of the current Royal Family, while her siblings are not, so I'd consider other notability criteria. Different countries have different rules on membership in a Royal house; the [UK's Royal Family] seems like the most analogous group to Soman's quote about a "public position that is notable in its own right". While it includes the subject's mother, it does not include the subject. Agyle (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to one (or both) of her parents. Notability is not inherited and she herself has done nothing notable. I am not sure about Pippa Middleton, but she may just about manage to be notable; but that would be near the margin. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge/redirect to a parent. Subject doesn't meet any of the person-specific notability criteria of WP:Notability (people), and I didn't find independent sources of significant coverage about the subject required by WP:GNG. While there has been a lot of minor coverage of the subject spanning more than a decade, none of it is what I'd call in-depth or significan. I think none I read was about her specifically; most independent coverage was about the subject's wedding to Harry Lopes, followed by brief articles on the birth of their children. Other than that, it's mostly one-sentence passing mentions, photo captions, or brief coverage in an article about her family. (This Hallifax Courier article does have six brief one-/two-sentence paragraphs on the subject).
While it's a little borderline, another thing I think should be considered is whether this is really a public figure or not, fair game for intruding into their privacy. One reason for lack of in-depth coverage is because, as people have pointed out, she hasn't done anything notable. She seems like a pretty normal person, and doesn't seem to have gone out of her way to attract attention; she just has famous family members. While WP:BLP's "presumption in favor of privacy" is directed toward limiting the type of coverage given to a subject, I think in the spirit of that, the question of the article's existence should also give this subject the presumption of privacy for an otherwise borderline notability question. As a point of comparison, consider her press-grabbing brother, who has many articles just about him, and is clearly a public figure. ––Agyle (talk) 01:53, 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, ‑Scottywong| converse _ 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited, and as "keeper" Monkelese said above: created because of her relation to a famous person (her mother) and also her relation to the astor family. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems to be based upon the mistaken idea that notability is a matter of the subject being important or worthy. This is false as, per WP:GNG, inclusion here is based upon coverage in sources. The subject has been covered in detail by reasonable sources such as Newsweek and the BBC and that's that. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree those sources provide significant enough coverage to establish notability, I think that's at least the right thing to disagree about, and it does seem that the nominator and some respondents may be using a generic meaning of notable, rather than Wikipedia's criteria. Agyle (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because someone has received coverage does not automatically make them notable enough to warrant an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, there is coverage, but it is largely of the gossipy trash magazine variety. I'm sure she's a nice person, but nobody would care if she weren't related to royalty and she's not a major enough figure in the monarchy that I think we can throw away WP:NOTINHERITED. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:36, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Osagie[edit]

Ricky Osagie (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 fails WP:NSOCCER. Youth players are not generally notable. The subject himself didn't receive significant coverage in reliable sources. His death however did. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Death, however unfortunate is not relevant per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jailbait[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jailbait (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)

POVFORK from Age of consent Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The sub-section at Age of consent about jailbait images was boldly cut and pasted from its original location at the jailbait article, by a user who knew very well from the previous discussion on the jailbait talk page that their action would be contested. Since the information was originally at the jailbait article, wouldn't the sub-section at 'Age of consent' be considered the POVFORK? In either case, the POVFORK material is only part of the article; even without all the material regarding jailbait images this article still has enough information and references to stand on its own. POVFORK is insufficient justification to nominate this article for deletion, no matter which way you look at it. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough content for a stand alone article. To be a POV fork, there would have to be a POV which is not the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons I stated at Talk:Jailbait#reducing to redirect and at Talk:Jailbait (disambiguation) about the topic of jailbait being capable of being a valid Wikipedia article. Its existence is not a content fork. The topics of age of consent and jailbait are distinct topics. Not everyone under the age of consent can be considered jailbait; for example, a 12-year-old is not normally considered jailbait; this is because a 12-year-old looks like a child (usually anyway) and is nowhere close to looking adult enough to sexually tempt an adult (at least when it comes to adults who are sexually attracted to adults and have no sexual interest in prepubescents or pubescents). This is in contrast to a 17-year-old, who is post-pubescent (has already achieved an adult body) and is one year away from being a legal adult -- age 18. As we know, age 18 is the age of majority in the vast majority of countries. Something about the age of majority should be mentioned in the Jailbait article, as well as what age range is not normally considered jailbait (if WP:Reliable sources for that exist). Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore: In rare cases, a person can be a legal adult but under the age of consent. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT The persistent problem is the insistence that this is the place to put material on images of allegedly underage women. I was the one who moved all the material to "age of consent", and I did it precisely because the legal issues were the focus of controversy. Stupidly at the same time I created the redirect at Jailbait images, which prevented me from dealing with the issue through a move, and at the moment I'm reluctant to do a cut-and-paste at this point, but I do think that the material needs to go elsewhere, and that the shared name element is not enough to force it to be part of this article-which-should-be-a-redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems notable enough. I'd suggest that images be left out (google will help those in need of such images). The article itself needs work, I see a lot of references to Gawker and Jezebel and Vice - we should and can do better, I'd suggest we trim the article to focus on what high quality sources say about this rather sensitive topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obiwankenobi, the vast majority of the sources in the article, before Mangoe's split of the article today, were about jailbait images; you won't find many scholarly sources (which is what I think you mean by "high quality sources") discussing the topic of jailbait images (and I mean specifically credited as jailbait images in the sources, not sources that simply discuss sexualized pictures of minors). And there was only one "jailbait" image in the article, which, as noted here, was removed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty notable term. I dislike how the article is structured. It appears the lead is serving less as a summary of the article, but a section in and of itself. I suggest reworking it, but aside from that, I think the article should stay. Bali88 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sustained amount of secondary source coverage over time. — Cirt (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to jailbait (disambiguation) Now that the dust has (at least temporarily) settled and the images have their own article, what's left simply duplicates material in age of consent. Given the unwillingness to get rid of the disambiguation it must become the target. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is a notable neologism. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dictionary definition of a neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -------> Carrite (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Yrarrázaval Larraín[edit]

Ricardo Yrarrázaval Larraín (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 individual. Unreferenced article. (Only two references are not really reliable) Diego Grez (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 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 13:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly notable, another case of not doing WP:BEFORE. See, just for starters, the article at MAVI (Museo de Artes Visuales), Bethel, Leslie, ed. (1998). A Cultural History of Latin America: Literature, Music and the Visual Arts in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Cambridge University Press. p. 430. and other items cited at this Google Books search; and that is before looking at offline sources such as Pistacchio, Camila. "Ricardo Yrarrazaval: los retratos del ser humano: la nueva e intima retrospectiva de este reconocido pintor y ceramista chileno es exhibida en el Museo de Artes Visuales, MAVI." Mensaje 63.628 (2014): 54; and "Los nuevos hallazgos en pintura de Ricardo Yrarrazaval." El Mercurio de Chile 15 August 2010. Perhaps there was some confusion over Latino names. Also, why did the nom. think that the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes was an unreliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Not less notable -at all- than American painter Timothy Hasenstein, whose article is not challenged. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Signoficant Chilean artist with adequate coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Food Fest[edit]

Latin Food Fest (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)

Billed as an "annual" event in San Diego, California, this local event has been held exactly once so far (September 2013). Apart from the announcement article for the first festival in the San Diego Union Tribune [16], I can find no evidence of any other significant coverage in independent sources or that in any other way it passes the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The Union Tribune article was not written by their staff. The byline is "Wendy Lemlin, Special to the U-T". Wendy Lemlin is a free-lance writer who runs P5 Marketing Inc "We make web marketing cost-effective. We deliver new customers and sales. We help you master the web for profit.". Note that this event is a client of and produced by Diálogo Public Relations. The article about its CEO, Lucia Matthews, was created by the same editor and is also nominated for deletion. The hand of the company is also visible in two other articles about their clients Santa Cecilia Orchestra (Los Angeles) and Sonia Marie De León de Vega, both of which are notable but both written like PR releases/magazine articles and have required (or will require) extensive editing. Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 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 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Matthews[edit]

Lucia Matthews (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 evidence that this person passes the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. The one award was a relatively minor PR industry award from the Hispanic Public Relations Association. I can find no coverage of her anywhere that is not sourced from press releases. Note that her company, Diálogo Public Relations, is seven years old with under 50 employees with likewise zero coverage that is not press release based. Latin Food Fest, one of Diálogo's clients, is also nominated for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability in the article, and none found on a search. In fact a Google search is more likely to turn up other people by the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 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. No compelling argument was advanced that the subject meets WP:GNG, there is no guideline or policy that would apply here providing specific guidance on the notability of academic journals. An essay, WP:NJOURNALS, exists, however, no argument was advanced that this journal meets it. The primary keep argument was an IAR argument for strongly leaning to inclusion for things we might use as sources within the encyclopedia, and I've (rarely) seen a similar argument get some weight in past AfDs, but I did not, here, find support for that argument strong enough to undermine consensus. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Bengali Studies[edit]

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

As per earlier PROD nomination by another editor: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." (PROD was removed by page creator, who has been COI-revert-warring to include hugely overblown amounts of promotional fluff, and who has now been blocked for making legal threats too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If this really is a peer-reviewed academic journal, we ought to allow an article on it. The fact that has not yet been picked by the citation indices merely indicates that those indices are out of date. inclusion depends on the compiler of the index taking out a subscription and the journal being successful in its marketing. I suspect that Western journals are not that good at picking up journals on subjects in the humanities. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand several things here. I'll try to go through it in order. 1/ Not all peer-reviewed journals should have an article, for many reasons. Here are a few: A/ Some of the are so-called predatory journals, that obviously are not notable enough to be covered (unless they are so bad that they cause a scandal and get coverage because of that; see for instance OMICS Publishing Group and its hundreds of journals). B/ Other journals get started and disappear again after a short time. If this happens with a major publisher, the journal usually remains accessible anyway. If it was self-published, it may disappear without a trace, with perhaps only a few individual articles still available in institutional repositories or on authors" own websites, as long as those last. 2/ The citation indices are out of date. Nope, this journal is just too young. Citation indices rarely include new journals before they have shown A/ some staying power and B/ has been shown to make an impact as evidenced by articles in other journals citing it. Scopus, for example, is a database that might well cover a journal like this one. You can see their inclusion criteria here, and they are absolutely not related to whether a journal's marketing is successful. Scopus is one of the less selective databases, but from what I have seen of this journal, I strongly doubt that it will qualify for Scopus any time soon. Indexes don't take subscriptions at all. Journals are always keen on being included in them because it drives readership (which is why OMICS tried suggesting that some of its journals were MEDLINE indexed). Every publisher I've ever heard of will be more then happy to send them a free subscription in order to be selected. Authors don't like to publish in journals that are not indexed for the same reason: lack of visibility of their work. 3/ "Western journals are not that good at picking up journals on subjects in the humanities". Sorry, but that is incorrect, too. There are big indexes specialized in the humanities (such as the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, but there are also smaller, more specialized indexes).
If you look at WP:NJournals, you'll see that our inclusion criteria are actually more relaxed than those of the selective citation indexes. If a journal is included in even just one selective index, we say that it is notable, so our coverage should eventually be equal to the sum of all such indexes. I don't see, given point 1, why we should be even more relaxed. All predatory journals claim to be peer-reviewed. We don't have the means or the expertise, most of the time, to decide whether that is correct or not. Unless they have generated significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, we should not include such journals. Even if we should decide that only journals on Beall's list are predatory (thereby basically giving him the right to decide what goes into WP or not) and write an article on any other journal as soon as it is established, in the end we still would be left with articles on journals that disappeared without much trace after a short period, leaving us with unverifiable stubs. The journal under scrutiny here is still very young. It is impossible to decide at this moment whether it will stay. There is no coverage in third-party sources. We have no means of deciding that it is high-quality or only publishes crap or something in between. Article creation is, in short, premature. I hope this clarifies the issues and apologize for the lengthy response... --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This journal started in February 2012 which is not very recent. They have five published issues published at regular intervals which followed a biannual frequency. The links to the complete published issues are available in this article. This journal claims to be a pioneer in studying the history and culture of what they call the 'Indic Bengali' people (looks like they are studying the Indian Bengalis), and this journal does not charge any fees for publication as per their journal policies (available on their website), therefore they cannot possibly be a predatory journal (going by the definition of predatory journals). So far as that indexing in online directories is concerned, they often do not do any justice for humanities journal, that too published in a such a new area studies. The stuff within this article is called promotional, but it appears they have only given their aims and objectives a fair hearing. The deletion of their editorial team by Randykitty was surely a case of hostile editing, because that segment alone proves that this journal is run by some respectable academics from some premier academic institutions in India, and that it is peer-run and peer-reviewed, and that it is an accountable journal. This is also incorrect to say that thir party sources were not there in the article. This journal's editor has been interviewed by a third party site, the link of which is there in this article, which clearly proves that this journal is noted by some people other than who are working in it. SubhashboseINA (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time) — SubhashboseINA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment 2012 is pretty recent for a journal in my eyes, but if you want to argue that that is long enough, you should realize that that makes the failure to be included in any database even more egregious. I have given above in my long answer to Peterkingiron examples of databases that include humanities journals, the argument that there is a bias against humanities is simply wrong. As for the interview, I assume that you mean this. First of all, it's a blog and therefore not a reliable source in the WP sense. Second, it's not really independent, as all it gives is the opinion of the editor on his own publication. And third, in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself. Really not significant coverage, no matter how you look at it. Nobody said this was a predatory journal, just re-read my comments to Peterkingiron more carefully. Ad for the editorial team, it does not matter how important these people are, because notability is not inherited. In any case, as long as there are no sources for a subject, we cannot have an article on it. For academic journals we often take a shortcut by accepting indexing in selective databases as significant coverage, but we don't have that here either. As for the hostile editing, please have a look at our journal article writing guide and then also read WP:AGF. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry, if this was not a predatory journal (as per its proclaimed policies on its website), then why did you even bring that topic in this debate Randykitty, when we are discussing its possible deletion? Secondly, it is factually inaccurate to say that in that third party interview "in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself". The very introductory line by that third party website mentions the name of this journal, and throughout that interview, the interviewer conducts his Q&A session on the basis of this journal alone. This kind of falsehood will bring this debate nowhere. True, that is not a "dotcom" site. But Skepoet is a noteworthy name in alternative humanities, and this segment of 'margnalia of radical thinking' where the journal editor's interview is published, earned some substantial critical acclaim among radical humanities groups. We cannot always have dotcom as the sole basis of accountability. Further, this journal is clearly assigned an ISSN by the Indian authorities in New Delhi keeping in line with the international policies, and so why exactly that should not be sufficient, and why do we need its index to be ratified by selective databases which we all know may not be favorable to this kind of new area studies? Lastly, people associated with premier Indian institutions do not bestow on this journal an inherited notability as it is being funnily suspected ("notability is not inherited"). Their association simply proves that this journal is accountable, and is peer-run and peer reviewed. Now can pleaseRandykitty and Future Perfect at Sunrise stop making these aggressive removals to this journal's wiki page and let it remain in its original form till this debate is over and a final call about its deletion is taken? Being malformed repeatedly by those clamoring for its deletion is surely a case of biased editing. If you think its should be deleted, why are you even bothering to edit it, and why cannot you simply wait till it is deleted? Thank you. SubhashboseINA (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time)
  • Very briefly: "predatory": Peter argued that all academic journals should be kept and I gave arguments why that is not feasible. PLease read his and mine comments. "ISSN": having an ISSN is absolutely and completely trivial. "Interview": I gave three reasons why that interview is not "significant coverage". "Aggressive removals": all content is available through the article history for the duration of this AfD. There is no reason to keep that spam "live". "The very introductory line": Yep, indeed: it gives the name of the editor, followed by "editor of etc". Really in-depth coverage, that. Finally, if you don't have any arguments that are based in Wikipedia policy, then stop wasting our time and stop making personal attacks. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the policy and pillar of WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Articles on scholarly journals should be presumed notable; we owe it to our readers to allow them to investigate the sources we are citing to document other WP articles. Even if there is little more the age and location of this particular journal, that is a start. Stubs do have value. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course stubs have value. However, please read my response to Peterkingiron above. Note to closing admin: I urge the closing admin to read the arguments presented here: Should we indeed do away with GNG and NJournals in the case of academic journals, whatever their merits? --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite's vote is nothing but an "I like it" argument, and goes directly counter to the fundamental consensus position valid across all notability discussions, that notability is a matter of coverage in independent reliable sources. In the present case, the amount of documented coverage in independent sources is precisely zero. As such, Carrite's vote is blatantly contrary to community consensus and must be disregarded in closing this AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Academic journals can be presumed notable unless proved otherwise. Newness does not mean that isn't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't be serious. Yet another person who thinks they can get away with a blatant "I like it" vote, without any basis in project-wide consensus and policy. Nothing on Wikipedia can ever be notable without substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find any evidence of multiple in-depth reliable sources. I was also unable to find any evidence of indexing in any indices. While we must be sensitive to possible systemic biases against journals outside the publishing mainstream, except for an ISSN, there is just no secondary acknowledgement or coverage, period. It may be this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Without such coverage, the journal fails notability per WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. I could not find any appropriate merge targets, either, hence recommend deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is a serious case of WP:COI that needs to be taken into account with this article... the article was created by User:Tamalmou. It turns out that he is the founder of the Journal. Thus, there is an element of self-promotion. I will also draw your attention to the fact that the only other article to link to Journal of Bengali Studies article is the article on Bengali Studies (which was also created by User:Tamalmou)... in that article it is mentioned in order to support a somewhat shaky claim that Bengali Studies is considered a notable academic discipline (to quote from that article: "This field is considered to have been formally recognised within academia in recent times with the launch of the Journal of Bengali Studies in the year 2012 by Tamal Dasgupta who teaches at University of Delhi"). Again... self-promotion is at play. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After my cleanup of the article (stub), the COI issue is not really important any more as far as the contents go. The motivation to create one article to support the other really smacks of the potential beginning of a walled garden, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still see no evidence this meets our criteria. On a side issue, I note that the organisation that publishes the journal is going to create more[17] and that its founder is the creator of the article. That might be all fine and dandy, except that they actually have an agenda.[18] "We are trying to promote Bengali history on wikipedia by authoring articles." Great. "We are working on the Jayadeva birth controversy, in order to dispel doubts about the birthplace of Jayadeva, the poet of Gitgobindo." Terrible and takes us back to this AfD. The birthplace of Jayadeva is heavily disputed, see [Jayadeva birth controversy]]. But here we have an 'academic journal' run by people who are dedicated to dispel doubts - that is to argue that he was born in Bengali and I would guess to use their journals as sources to push this position. Please read all of [19] as it appears this organisation hopes to have an impact on a number of our articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having looked at all of the various links above, this appears actually to be a publication by a pressure group rather than a serious academic exercise. Shoptodina describes itself as a nationalist body and its BISOS offshoot is described as "a close-knit group" which also gives me cause for alarm. There certainly was COI and, yes, it did look like the start of a walled garden. We don't need this sort of thing and Mark viking's point about GNG/TOOSOON is entirely valid. Maybe one day ... although I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. As this page is in the Draft: namespace, WP:MfD is the proper venue. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nate the Great[edit]

Draft:Nate the Great (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Nate the Great|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, notability not asserted, too many issues to ever be encyclopedic as written. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:35, 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 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1983[edit]

Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1983 (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)

Do we really need this article? I don't think having Active ships per year is such a good idea, too much effort maintaining it. This article is an orphan so nothing links here - rather delete IMO it as all the info is available on other pages Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Why in the world is an article such as this remotely necessary? Picking an arbitrary year and creating an article such as this is pointless. MiracleMat (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How many more of these lists are there? This Afd should have been bundled together with the list for 1982 and 1981. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:49, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsogo sun[edit]

Tsogo sun (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)

@KLMuller: @AlisonM321: @JamesBWatson: @Amatulic: @Ronhjones: @Timtrent: I'm not going to restate what has been said elsewhere, but instead am just pinging the involved people. Articles on this subject have been repeatedly deleted. Please see... [20] [21] [22]

Admittedly, I have not personally investigated the notability of this company, since it has previously been done. I do, however, think it is fairly obvious that the article needs to go away and both variations on the title salted so that that article cannot be recreated under yet a third username without being submitted to AfC. I think it's clear from the history that blatant attempts have been made to evade the 'oversight' of anyone previously involved. Reventtalk 07:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sufficient notability has been not been shown in the references. More than one reference is a primary source. property24.com is a property for sale site, the share issue material is primary and not about the entity. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. This article does not demonstrate nor verify any notability. If this entity is notable it ought not to be too hard to prove it. If it is proven during the course of this discussion, ping me and I will revisit my opinion.
As a note to the nominator, I would infinitely prefer a full rationale for deletion. I appreciate your links to other places, but a synopsis as a rationale is important. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article's sources, apart from a couple of financial reports, are all on sites that serve to promote businesses, and they largely consist of mere announcements of business deals and the like, in the manner of press releases. None of them remotely resemble the kind of coverage in reliable independent sources that is required. Before the creation of the present article, I had previously made extensive searches for information about this company, because of requests for help from the author of this article, and I failed to find any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In fact, on the contrary, it became completely clear to me that the company does not satisfy those guidelines. In addition to that, the article is distinctly promotional in character, and most of its content is not sourced at all, not even to the kind of unsuitable sources I have mentioned. The present article is one of a number of versions of this page, created by two single purpose accounts (one of them has made no edits on any other topic at all, and 90% of the edits of the other account are clearly related to Tsogo Sun, the other 10% being trivial edits relating to companies which, as far as I know, may or may not be connected to Tsogo Sun).
(As I mentioned above, the author of this article made several requests to me for help. For anyone who is interested, the substantial content of my response to those requests can be seen at User talk:AlisonM321#Your draft article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notably. even the first page of google results shows Financial Times mention [23] Rmhermen (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Google tells you that one newspaper once mentioned a subject is not enough to establish notability: it is necessary to look at the nature of the mention. Have you actually seen the Financial Times article in question? (The link you picked up from Google and quoted above will not give you access to the article unless you have a paid account.) The Financial Times article is merely a brief report that another company was considering selling its share in Tsogo Sun. "Mention", yes, "significant coverage" no. (WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and WP:ITSINTHENEWS are all somewhat relevant.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Planck Institute for Human Development[edit]

Max Planck Institute for Human Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources not notable I+delete+things+alot (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optical power[edit]

Optical power (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)

looks like made up term, may merge to optical article. I+delete+things+alot (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is not a made up term, and the definition is supported by a reference to a reliable source. Any textbook on optics will also cover this. Redirecting to the main optics article would not, in any case, be appropriate. This is an article on a specific topic within optics. --Srleffler (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. obviousTR 18:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's a really common term that is taught in school physics lessons. Concerned about this user's recent propensity to open frivolous AfDs. Please take more care in making sure that articles are appropriate for AfD. Cowlibob (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is a well-known term in optics; it is something taught in the optics section of most basic physics classes. An eyeglass prescription is usually in diopters, the units of optical power. While the article could be developed and more references cited, this is a quite notable topic and there is no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:59, 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 02:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd[edit]

Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd (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'm completing this nomination for IP user User:180.155.69.97. I do not currently have an opinion on the company or article. Their rationale is listed below, as taken from Talk:Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about a non-notable company and might be a spam.The article on Chinese wiki which was translated from this article has been speedily deleted as a spam.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hongkong-related deletion discussions--180.155.72.174 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 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 no consensus. While many of the sources are indeed trivial or company based and the independent sourcing is thin, I accept that the the mweb article may be something to begin with and that the "keep" side therefore has enough merit for me not to call a policy-based delete on this one. The possibility of merging is still open to discussion on the article talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouma Rusks[edit]

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

The article is about a brand, and reads like an advert for it. It is indeed an advert for the brand. I think a more suitable article should be created for the company that makes the brand, and elaborate on it. Otherwise, unless Wikipedia is now a marketing platform, I don't see the need for brands having pages. Cartney23 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a number of references, and this does meet WP:GNG. I note that this article has been around since February 2006‎. Although tagged as appears to be written like an advertisement since February 2008, its notability was never questioned either with a tag or on its talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beskuit is the more important entry here, and mention can be made of Ouma rusks on its page as an example of that traditional food. Otherwise this page remains a brand advertisement. There is no reason the Ouma rusk should have its own page, especially since all the other rusks named on the Rusk page do not have their own individual pages. It’s also one of many iconic and famous brands in South Africa, yet the others do not have Wikipedia pages of their own. Ouma’s correct entry should be a mention in beskuit. Cartney23 (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether other rusks might be notable, it is whether Ouma Rusks is notable. --Bejnar (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouma Rusks is a brand of beskuit. My argument is that it should be identified as such, on the beskuit page. There are other more notable SA (and even non-SA) brands, and they don't have their own pages. Because then it all boils down to an advert.Cartney23 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it deserves mention on the beskuit page. then make the appropriate edit. This is not a discussion of other rusks, but about Ouma Rusks. The article is not an advertisement, Ouma rusks (1) created a company (2) represents grassroots economic development in rural South Africa (3) were the first manifestation of post-WWII industrial (used loosely) development in South Africa (4) they have become an iconic brand. So there is a raison d'etre for keeping them in the encyclopedia, and they meet the notability threshold of WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:30, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every single source is either a negligible mention that doesn't even repeat "ouma" more than once, a primary source, or a press release. The only one that might not be a puff piece is mweb. Wikipedia doesn't care about what a company does, what it makes, or where it's made -- only that there exists significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I agree with Cartney23 that it may deserve mention at rusk but in no way passes WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in case there's doubt about the allafrica reference being a press release because it's behind a paywall, the full text is available: here. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument that brands should not have pages is invalid. Then delete all articles relating to "Samsung", "Toyota" and any other brand. The information is factual with references. Just because other manufacturers of rusks don't have their own pages is no valid reason why Ouma can't have a page. It is not proposing that Ouma is a better brand of rusks than any other rusk. I don't see how this can be interpreted as an advertisement.Goliatus (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Goliatus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • you're arguing against a straw man. Please take a look at wikipedia standards for notability (which is a technical term indifferent to how good the product is or how factual the information is. It's available here: WP:N--— Rhododendrites talk |  15:13, 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. WP:CORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. j⚛e deckertalk 02:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Software[edit]

Rally Software (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)

Several questionable references, narrowly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but most importantly a grossly promotional tone that would require a complete overhaul to be encyclopedic. Deprodded by user with disclosed COI. While I'm uneasy with this, disclosure of the COI shows good faith and I don't think it should be an issue except insofar as the promotional tone of the article may be attributed to COI. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 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 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and WP:SOAP. It's an appalling piece of bum fodder. All that's missing is a link to E-trade. It's traded on the NYSE, but it is not an encyclopedic article, and WP is not a PR platform. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. This is a page consisting of factual, referenced company information. The company is traded on the NYSE, but in no way does this page solicit or attempt to be anything but a factual reference page. Is this any different than IBM, Volvo, McDonalds or any other company reference page? TPG (talk) 19:40, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Could change if the company gets more attention from financial analysts etc. --Boson (talk) 23:01, 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 no consensus due to limited participation. (WP:NPASR). However, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page, or perhaps just be boldly performed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 20:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China Resources Building (Hong Kong)[edit]

China Resources Building (Hong Kong) (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 office building. No significant article content (Wikipedia is not a directory). Plenty of passing mentions on listings websites but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Can be merged with the China Resources Enterprise article in a new section. Similar article created by the same author deleted in March.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:13, 11 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 00:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Multiple sources can be found.For example [24][25][26].I'm not sure whether they are independent of the subject.Actually,they do in Chinese wiki.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references are acceptable for verification and will provide about a paragraph of text - I have reworded the submission to clarify that this is merge proposal.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:28, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:03, 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 but retitle. Several delete arguments were based on the poor quality of the methodology. This might be a matter for comment in-article but does nothing to detract from the subject notability, consequently, such arguments have been discounted. Several contributors suggested merging. This close has no comment on that and leaves it for further discussion on the article talk page SpinningSpark 18:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 historical figures[edit]

Top 100 historical figures (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)

Such a study would have to be covered in secondary sources to be suitable for an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No secondary sources, as nom said. Also, frankly, the study does not seem all that successful. The fact that Carl Linnaeus developed our system of naming living things, and so is cited in thousands of WP articles, should not make him the number 1 historical figure. Borock (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does cite a PLOS One article[27] and there is some third-party media coverage[28][29]. So it's not a million miles from notability. However, I wonder if there's a suitable merge target in one of the many articles about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The PLOS One article is just the study itself, it's a primary source. You're right that a merge would be more appropriate than keeping this as a separate article, but I'm still not sure even that is warranted; the two secondary sources both point out that the study's methodology is poor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the article's initial author (HarryBoston). I am not philosophically opposed to either (1) improving the article (me or some other author), or (2) merging into an existing article. I am opposed to outright deletion. FYI: I am no way connected to the academic study or any of the articles or references cited.--HarryBoston (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to List of rankings of historical figures, to include The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History and Who's Bigger?. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it can be a rather useful article if the title, of text, points that this is

"Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia". There are different algorithms used by different research groups based ONLY on Wikipedia content. In this respect this is purely mathematical and statsitical determination of top 100 being of principle difference from the approach used by Hart who used historical and other type arguments but which can be dependent of a researcher. Nevertheless this is overlap of about 43 percent between the list of Hart and other groups. I add other references and links to research and methods of other groups. I vote to keep this article (but may be to make a small addition "of Wikipedia" to distinguish with Hart).--shepelyansky (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (CET)

  • Re-title. While the content may have value in certain articles, the bold title invokes a subject much broader and open to interpretation than the list generated by Eom et al., and focusing solely on it constitutes significant bias by omission (see WP:POVNAMING and WP:NDESC). There may be well be hundreds of "top 100" lists published throughout history and around the world (e.g. Who's Bigger?, Time 100, and The Best 100): some generated by voting, some by algorithms, some by expert opinion, but all subject to inherent caveats, limitations, and biases (cultural, temporal, etc.), and, unless the collective lists themselves have received significant secondary comparison, simply listing all lists would be banal and tedious. However, this same article re-titled Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia would provide more appropriate scope, with a more clearly-defined subject per WP:PRECISE, and the two press articles mentioned above may support stand-alone notability.--Animalparty-- (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It got significant coverage, and after the AfD-nomination, the article has improved significantly. The sourcing is OK now. Still, the article got issues, as stated by the users above. That means that these issues must be solved by renaming and/or merging. Therefore I propose keeping it, and making it ready for a next round of editing. Addition: and if the article doesn't improve within a few months, I don't mind for another AfD-nomination.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 01:55, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is substantial coverage, including linked New York Times article here. I gather from comments above that i am looking at a substantially improved article. It is now, at least, clearly well supported and the topic is notable. --doncram 05:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Entirely subjective list, thoroughly unecyclopedic. So French researchers have found that Napoleon Bonaparte is the most influential figure in history?!?! What a surprise. Next thing you know, American researchers will come up with a list ranking George Washington number one. Then Russian researchers can come up with a list with V. I. Lenin in the top slot. Then we can edit war!!! Carrite (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with your way of reasoning, but in this case, it doesn't fit. It were French researchers, using mathematical and statistical methods from the Wikipedia database. And they came up with a Swedish biologist. So there is no subjectivity issue here. Only a notability issue. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives undue weight to a particular method of ranking. From the sources, it is clear that some of the resulting quirks resulted in this study gained plenty of news coverage, but that is short-term coverage only and due to the WP:NOTNEWS policy, insufficient. We would need more long-lasting scholarly attention for this to be notable. (Even then, the title would need to change, this article is more about Wikiedia's coverage of history than it is about historical figures as the title suggests.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Re-title. The references prove it is notable, but the title is misleading. It was renamed to "Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia". While it is improved, I am not sure this is a good title either.Frmorrison (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of shopping malls in Canada pbp 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Square[edit]

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

NN 252,502 square ft, 70+ store mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as to the topic not meriting a stand-alone. A redirect would be more appropriate than a merge. This material -- at the time of both nomination and the above comment -- was uncited. The target (now) has cited mention of the mall, which is appropriate in size for an article on the city. Uncited material is not appropriate for merge, and it's silly to mid-AfD create the material with the purpose of only re-creating it again at the target. Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:24, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here is what I found on Google books and Google newspapers:
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (January 3, 1980). "Cornwall enjoying boom of new shopping centres". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. [The city's economic development commissioner] credits previous...city planning...for the construction boom. 'It follows a sequence of events dating back...five years to when the city redeveloped the Water Street area,' he said.
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (November 19, 1980). "Cornwall draws industry". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. ...The major one was the opening of the $20-million Cornwall Square downtown shopping complex.
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (September 10, 1979). "Cornwall pushing for more industry". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. Moskowitz is quick to rattle off a list of major new developments such as the Pitt Street Mall, the Civic Complex and the Cornwall Square Shopping Centre.
  • Staff (February 28, 1980). "Cornwall planners approve another shopping proposal". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. ...noted that this is the third major shopping center being developed following the opening of the $21-million Cornwall Square complex. The two others are a $5-million addition to the Brookdale Mall and a $4-million centre along Vincent Massey Drive.
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (September 25, 1979). "Motorists winning, pet owners losing". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. The Toronto developers of the shopping centre who will also manage it...their 1,000-car garage. ...the shopping centre provides jobs for about 400 people.
Unscintillating (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Satisfies WP:N.  This topic has attracted the attention of the world at large as shown with the sources posted above.  This evidence is not the opinion of Wikipedia editors arguing "I like it", or the result of promotional efforts by the mall owners.  The topic opened in October 1979, and has been attracting attention since 1975.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Scheurer[edit]

Randi Scheurer (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)

It's indicated she didn't win the primary. She doesn't meet standard of notability for politicians. Elassint Hi 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 11 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 02:26, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 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 merge to Alcatel Mobile Phones. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatel One Touch[edit]

Alcatel One Touch (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've been fighting an "unconstructive editor" here and I noticed that this is poorly laid out and barely sourced. The three sources are all from the company website; no outside sources. Based on this, I nominate for deletion. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Beyond the sources from Alcatel themselves, this particular brand of smartphone has received enough coverage to be notable through the form of reviews and news articles for phones that fall under the brand name. A few One Touch-branded phones also have their own articles, and while notability isn't inherited per se, in this particular case several One Touch phones receiving extensive cover makes the brand as a whole notable, and the article provides a needed overview of the entire brand. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the suggestions for a merge, I also would be as much in support of a merge as a keep. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Alcatel Mobile Phones as duplicate. One Touch appears to be the most common brand of Alcatel Mobile Phones and in view of the fact that both articles are primarily lists of One Touch phones, there's no reason to have both. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 11 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 02:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Alcatel Mobile Phones and improve clarity of both pages; a chronology would be most useful, instead of throwing all model names together. — JFG talk 07:31, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 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 merge to Jeff Dunham. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jeff Dunham performances[edit]

List of Jeff Dunham performances (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)

Delete per WP:NTOUR, which I think is applicable here. Without verification and discussion of the topic (in this case, these series of performances, not just some individual review), this does not pass the notability guidelines. In fact, there really are no references for anything here at all. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge basic tour info to Jeff Dunham, as of course the parent article should have something about his tours (regardless of whether they are individually notable) but there's no call for such bloated formatting and individual tour dates so as to take up a whole page with them. The lack of references at present is immaterial and not indicative of the verifiability of the basic information. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively - Agree it runs into problems with WP:NTOUR. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Jeff Dunham per the rationale of User:Postdlf and as a reasonable WP:ATD. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 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 keep. j⚛e deckertalk 02:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Martinez (musician)[edit]

Oscar Martinez (musician) (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 made article about a non-notable person. I'm nominating at AfD as the "links" seem to be some sort of general citation, and to clear up any doubts about the subject's notability. It may also be worth noting, that while "Oscar Martinez" is the name of a character on the US version of "The Office", this person probably exists. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending a verifiable reference or two. I've had some trouble finding enough references to provide proper sourcing for an article (Spanish-language sources may have more to offer), but there's a plethora of links describing him as a "legend" in Tejano music. As an inductee of two different Tejano music Halls of Fame (ref to one of them here) he should easily pass WP:MUSBIO point 7 as "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". The article needs a lot of work, but notability should not be a problem. --Finngall talk 21:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if somebody can provide a reliable source about Martinez, I will withdraw my nomination. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 03:55, 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) 03:25, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Inprove. He seems to be a major figure in Tejano music. Many of the relevant sources will be in Spanish and only in print, not on line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep - more notable than just about any music bio of the latest 2014 hits. I easily located several English sources and added them. There are more in Spanish and not online no doubt. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Lounge Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fortune Lounge 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)

Another user thought this a spam, and nominated for speedy deletion - I'm not so sure, as it has some genuine criticism, so I declined it. So, some wider discussion is needed to determine if this article should be deleted for being too promotional. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:56, 19 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) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Company and WP:RS. It doesn't appear to have reliable sources. It appears to be entirely sourced with online websites and not what WP considers RS. I didn't find anything in the usual business sources. If more suitable sources are found, I'd change my ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:09, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. the sources are all primary or promotional. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 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. I don't think this needs to be salted yet, since the article has been re-created only once in this form and the close of the previous AfD in a sense left the door open for a re-creation. If it pops up again, however, G4 and salting may well be appropriate. Deor (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joost van den Broek[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joost van den Broek (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 that is already removed twice and recreated without the use of WP:REFUND. Article is quite promotional and the biography section is completely unsourced. The discography is only sourced with external links. Notability is doubtful. The Banner talk 11:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any evidence of notability. Bio has been deleted twice on Dutch WP, too. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT for repeated recreation, I wasn't able to find sources meeting WP:MUSICBIO. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solution 7[edit]

Solution 7 (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. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:12, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had no luck finding sources showing this meets WP:BAND, WP:GNG... --j⚛e deckertalk 18:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetonomics[edit]

Aesthetonomics (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)

PRODed as a non notable neologism ( a staggeringly small number of hits on Google): PROD removed with a rationale I don't quite understand, but part of it appears to be a wish to promote the term. It also says something about explaining the term, but I really don't think the existing article coherently explains anything, quite the contrary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. There is absolutely no published work in this apparently scientific field except that published by the designer who coined the term. Also can't make sense of what it's trying to describe. Is this an economic concept or is it fashion design? Nobody seems to know. Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fashion and design have an impact on economics. It would be hard to prove this term notable. Maybe an article about Linda Rampell would be notable enough.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that an article on Linda Rampell would provide notability. Looking for sources for an article now. Henrik.callerstrand (talk) 07:41, 26 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 03:57, 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. Deor (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Spiegel[edit]

Karen Spiegel (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 and fails to meet WP:NPOL standards. – S. Rich (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I should have brought this to AfD when I deleted some copyvio, sorry. Fails our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mayor of a city which has no regional significance. Fails WP:NPOL Cowlibob (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could go either way on this. There is some "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" which might satisfy point 3 of WP:NPOL. After only a few minutes of searching I was able to find and add some of these to the article. I'm sure with more diligence, other sources could be found. Whether it meets the "significant coverage" verbiage (which I've always found to be an overly subjective standard) is questionable though. btw, "no regional significance"? I wouldn't be so dismissive of a city of ~158,000. Read the article if you're not familiar with Riverside County.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably harsh. When I saw the article it was basically an one liner of she's the mayor of this city so maybe I was a tad dismissive. You've since added some more content which is helpful. I agree it can be quite subjective. Could you find anything from national newspapers? Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do little more than confirm what she is, a local politician, and do not add to notability. And per the Press-Enterprise story, the mayor's position is simply an enhanced council member. I believe, without research, that her position with the Transportation Commission comes about simply because each city gets to provide a member. If she'd be making noteworthy accomplishments as mayor, councilmember, or TC member, we'd need to see it. But I don't think this article as WP:POTENTIAL. (I will add that the mayors for other large cities in Riverside County, California, i.e., Riverside, California, Moreno Valley, California, and Temecula, California do not have articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Corona, California - or Delete. As pointed out she is just a glorified council member, and while Corona is not small, it would be difficult to describe it as a "regionally significant city" in the context of Riverside County. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough to pass GNG with the general failure of city being important enough to cause mayor to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly in theory, Corona is a large enough city that its mayors could qualify for Wikipedia articles — cities with populations of 100K or more very commonly are deemed large enough for articles about their mayors. Caveat coming, however: the one legitimately reliable source in this article clarifies that the mayor of Corona is not directly elected, but rather the position is simply rotated annually among the city councillors. That's the real knockdown here, because it makes the mayoralty of Corona effectively a ceremonial role rather than one with any actual political authority in its own right. (That's exactly the criterion on which many mayors in England, frex, fail the wikinotability test even in some fairly large cities.) And the sourcing here is fit for the birds, relying almost entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability. No prejudice against recreation if somebody could write a genuinely substantial and well-sourced article about her, but under the circumstances that's unlikely and this version is definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per @Bearcat:. Searched, did not find much, although there was this award, overall does not seem to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:15, 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 redirect to Warriors (novel series)#Crookedstar.27s Promise. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crookedstar's Promise[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crookedstar's Promise (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)

Children's fiction book that fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 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, NorthAmerica1000 03:08, 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 02:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AppalArts Magazine[edit]

AppalArts 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)

Non-notable new magazine. Current provided references are a summary of a conference presentation by one of the founders, some blog posts, and a link with no apparent connection to the magazine. --Finngall talk 02:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMAG at this time.  Gongshow   talk 03:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 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 merge to Humor. After merge, delete without leaving a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humor (positive psychology)[edit]

Humor (positive psychology) (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)

Merge and delete. We already have Humor, Theories of humor, and Humor research. This article is self-referential (it cites other Wikipedia articles multiple times), and is otherwise mostly sourced to a single work by the creator of Positive Psychology. It appears to be part of an effort to promote this theory using Wikipedia. Revent (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Use/application of humor in positive psychology is not different and distinct enough from Humor to warrant a new article. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:50, 20 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 02:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete (i.e. no redirect necessary). Does not warrant separate article as well as Humor. --Boson (talk) 23:15, 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 Snow keep. Kept, keeping ratified at DRV, this re-re-nomination posted slightly over an hour later; no chance this will pass David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One (Ra material)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Law of One (Ra material) (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 book series is not notable and does not have enough significant coverage and notable, reliable sources to justify an article.

This article is permitted to be under another AFD nomination in accordance to Roy Smith's approval: "If somebody wants to bring this back to AfD for another discussion of the merits of the article itself, they're free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)" --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep - The previous AFD just last week found there was sufficient sources and notability to keep. The Deletion review found that there was no error in that determination. While consensus may change over time, this AFD was started a day after the previous KEEP and ENDORSE, which strikes me as a desire to delete at any price, and seems a bit disruptive. Note: I was the closing admin for the last AFD. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Objection - I am following Wikipedia policy and acting within what is freely enabled and permitted. I have not acted against any general guideline and I will accept the inevitable consensus these discussions will bring. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This same user has now nominated this article or its fork for deletion three times in a month and also requested a deletion review after the previous AFD resulted in a keep. I agree with Dennis Brown that it starts to seem like a desire to delete at any price. Bathmiaios (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will now address the statement of "a desire to delete at any price." I desire to see this article covered significantly and reliably. I am using the deletion process to audit this article and its sources, and maximize the amount of scrutiny this article and every article deserves. As the article currently stands, I believe the article is best deleted while its potential rebirth and future is determined by better sources. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep. Per Dennis Brown. It's far too soon for yet another AfD. The article is now little more than a stub based on the amount of material cut since it first appeared at AfD. The sourcing is sufficient to justify its continued existence per WP:GNG.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close per WP:POINT. Are AfDs to be re-opened continually until they produce the "right" answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:POINT and WP:SNOW. At the second AfD, the article was kept after several of us found sufficient reliable sources to indicate notability. I understand from others' statements above that the deletion review was closed with an endorsement of the keep decision. It should also be noted that the nominator more than once radically truncated the article during the 2nd AfD, had done so during the AfD for the fork at The Law of One (this article's original title), and has now done so to this article again prior to the renomination, and that two other editors have also been radically shortening it; see discussion on the article talk page regarding the sources that were present in the article prior to the second AfD. The current state of the article is misleading in this respect; however, the criterion for keeping it is notability as indicated by what sources exist, not what sources are present in it. It remains notable under applicable guidelines for books. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-3. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be a reasonable alternative. Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G2 TEST / G3 HOAX ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maleficent - The end of the MU Campus (Video Game)[edit]

Maleficent - The end of the MU Campus (Video Game) (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 video game. I am unable to find any evidence that it exists, let alone that it is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 01:12, 27 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) 02:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 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 17:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell Road[edit]

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

An article talking about 2 different roads called Roswell Road (one in Atlanta and one in Marietta) as if they were the same road. They are not. Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, but this article could be reformatted as a disambiguation page, not deleted. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—neither case appears notable on their own. They may be parts of state routes, but that doesn't make them notable as separate subjects. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Rschen7754 17:00, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polnische Wehrmacht (World War II)[edit]

Polnische Wehrmacht (World War II) (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 a result of a simple misunderstanding. A formation called Polnische Wehrmacht never actually existed in the Wehrmacht and cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, because the title is borrowed from a common phrase in the German language and simply turned upside down. In that regard the article is a non-notable hoax. Adolf Hitler said: The task of the Wehrmacht is to destroy the Polish armed forces (die polnische Wehrmacht)... quoted from the 3 April 1939 directive for a plan of German attack against Poland.[31] Poeticbent talk 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result this Freudian Mumbo Jumbo is a whole bunch of paradigms piling up, one upon the other:

  1. Polska Siła Zbrojna existed in 1917, not in 1944 (wrong war !!)
  2. Legion Orła Białego was from Stalinist Poland, not from Nazi Germany
  3. Waffen SS Polen never took off, it was an idea
  4. Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor died in 1637 over three hundred years earlier, the best joke by far!
    Poeticbent talk 02:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No in-line citations. I'm not sure Inne Oblicza Historii is a reliable source and the one article I looked at doesn't support the article's assertions. The article also lists Jerzy Kochanowski's work but that source also doesn't support the article's assetions. The translated version says that the Poles refused to serve the German occupiers and Nazi leadership had no trust in the Poles, anyway. At most, some Poles may have been in an auxiliary unit digging ditches, nothing more. American Slavic and East European Review agrees with Poeticbent that Polish soldiers served under German officers during WWI, not WWII. Now that I've wasted an hour debunking this, let me emphasize that amateurs have no business writing historical articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created by a SPA Polischstorm (talk · contribs) and is a translation of Polish Wikipedia article created there by IP 79.186.158.27. I cannot find any refs to support this article's existence, the online articles I found don't mention this formation by name. I agree with Poeticbent we have a hoax/OR here. Kill it. I'll start the deletion procedure at pl wiki. A German language editor should comment on linked de:Division Weißer Adler which I cannot find much sources about, either, so they may want to start a discussion on de wiki about this article as well. PS. We already have a proper article on Poles in the Wehrmacht which contains an unref summary of this hoax, it will have to be purged of this vandalism, and all incoming links should be similarly reviewed and cleansed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:Piotrus re: Weißer Adler: The german article actually seems OK. It seems to be based on Kochanowski's article and describes an attempt that failed. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recently, I read the article of Kochanowski Jerzy (Polacy do Wehrmachtu? Propozycje i dyskusje 1939-1945. Zarys problemu, Przegląd Historyczny, Vol. 93, 2002, No. 3) and there is no information about such a thing. Kmicic (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, I would like to point out that there is a section called Polische Wehrmacht located on the Poles in the Wehrmacht article that also should be removed, and the German version of this article should also be flagged for deletion. Finally, there are a few links to the Polische Wehrmacht that should be removed if and when the process in concluded. --Factor01 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • re:"Poles in W" - I've just delketed the section as unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I deprodded this page because it was desribed as "fork" in the prod. When seeing this AfD I momentarily felt guilty, but now I see I did the right thing: otherwise the whole fancy section in Poles in the Wehrmacht would have survived but for this discussion. - A yet another argument in favor of AfD with its many eyeballs. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 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 speedied as copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time[edit]

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time (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)

Subjective list presented by a single source, no evidence that this list (not the films but the actual list) is notable BOVINEBOY2008 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_June_27&oldid=1142223263"