Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 June	9 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete, WP:ONEEVENT--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Dube[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Subject was involved in a non-notable murder case. Following his arrest over a year ago, there has been practically no coverage on this case, which has not been featured on any major crime documentaries or shows like 48 Hours or Dateline. This case does not meet WP:EVENTS and WP:CRIME due to lack of persistent coverage or long-term effects on society The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PERP as; the victim is not even close to famous, and the motive of crime is not unusual. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myrk[edit]

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

Article about a Kyrgyz derogatory slang word. An IP editor applied a prod tag, but also tried to add it to the day's listing at AfD. Given the contradictory methods but clear intent, I'm completing the AfD listing on behalf of the IP for procedural reasons--I have no opinion on the deletion myself. IP editor gave "Meaningless article" as the reason for the prod. --Finngall ^talk 22:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-verifiable original research breaching Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Gene93k.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabinoid hyperemesis acute renal failure[edit]

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

Neologism. Based on a single weak source. All vomiting can cause acute kidney injury and does not imply a specific pathogenesis. The relevant content should be covered in the cannabis hyperemesis syndrome article. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Topic can be covered in the Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome article. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO - "first described in 2013".... Bearian (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, seems to be a POV fork. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Strati[edit]

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

PROD was contested. Artist has exhibited in Sydney and Rome ("internationally") and been a finalist for a couple of prizes (including one run by the college she works for). I've searched for English and Italian news sources about her but can't find any. Long standing notability concerns, fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Artist with no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Yes, as per the CV here I don't think she meets notability, but most of the cases we have seen at AfD recently have been much more obvious, and in minding the Gender Gap I would note that in some cases men with about the same credentials have been kept.--Theredproject (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I agree editors are much more forgiving to men. However, I was slowly working through the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Notability concerns, which we set up to give additional time to find supportive evidence/sources. Being an artist from an English speaking country the evidence is much more likely to be available, if it exists. If I saw one single thing that indicated notability I would not have nominated her. Sionk (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete suspected WP:AUTOBIO created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The cv lists a solo show at a notable gallery, Object: Australian Design Centre. If there were more like that, it might be enough. But the other shows and awards listed look too minor for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- thanks to the nom for doing such research and for everyone for trying to avoid the Gender Gap; it's pretty close, but if the British School residency is still the highest award (it's important, but below the limit for WP:PROF/Artist, in my opinion; a bit like a Yaddo or MacDowell residency; hints at notability but needs more) then it's a bit low. Would reconsider if more awards/exhibitions can be found. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:12, 9 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Auld[edit]

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

Non-notable stage actor, fails WP:NACTOR. G S Palmer (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could find no reliable source mention of this person with a web search. All references added to article to date do not mention this person. Fails basic notability guidelines for an article. Has the flavor of an WP:AUTOBIO based on the username of the article creator. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails NACTOR & GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not reaching the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Basso[edit]

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

Zero sources. No notability established. Has had a small role in a film and as "someone who bumps someone causing them to spill their drink" in a television series. Nymf (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the two notable roles in notable films/television series rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Searched 5 SERP pages, using "web" not "news" filter on Google, still did not find anything indicating notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's an actress with documented roles, no reason to delete. Blaze33541 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe someday, but for today, she fails to fulfill the criteria at WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuk Son Yong[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ACTORBIO, not noted as main cast on the series. CSD removed by anonIP a few times. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Name has got a few social networking results, not notable. OccultZone (Talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 16:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 16:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources outside of unreliable social media and blogs. The name is Korean, not Filipino. There is no such listing at IMdB, but there is a similar Son Yung Kuk, which has a single entry. This may be a hoax, or the subject just may be too obscure for IMdB. Even my Filipino-American fiancee' has an IMdB page, so they do not discriminate. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Seeing trivial mentions but can't tell if it is the same person. Even if it was, it isn't significant coverage, thus fails notability test. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting of grasshoppers in nyamanga community[edit]

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

No indication this was common practice, nor are there any references to attest to this. It is written in an unencyclopaedic tone and to be honest reads like a joke. Also would be too local to actually imply notability on Wikipedia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grasshoppers are eaten in lots of places: see Grasshopper#As food. Nothing special about this particular location. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks references. Article more about an anthropological or sociological topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR; this is essentially an unsourced essay. A redirect would not be needed as this is an extremely unlikely search term. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time of the Ripper[edit]

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

Article is about a novel which has no credible sources to show its importance. Not notable whatsoever, see WP:NOT. This apparently the author's first book. Anastasia (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No explanation of significance. It could be tagged for speedy deletion. Piguy101 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piguy101: Just a note, but A7 doesn't apply to books, albums, software, or other creative works. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My point is withdrawn. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable book, can find nothing in the way of reviews &c.TheLongTone (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything to show that this book passes notability guidelines. It exists, but existing is not notability. I recommend potentially salting this, as this is the second time it has been created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any info or reviews. Found the book on Amazon but not even a single review from customers there. Not notable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Additionally, requests to delete and move AfD pages can be discussed at MfD. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer[edit]

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

Perhaps I'm going mad, but I'm sure I read somewhere that a Wikipedia article cannot be obtained through Wikipedia editing alone? That's all Pulsifer seems to be notable for. The phrase "minor media celebrity" sums it up beautifully. Laun chba ller 18:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5th nomination! Unbelievable. Could someone please: delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (3rd nomination); move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (2nd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (3rd nomination) and move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (2nd nomination). I am considering whether or not I want to proceed with this.--Laun chba ller 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep "I'm sure I read somewhere" doesn't cut it as a reason to delete. Get back to us when you actually have a link to policy. The sources such as Time and USA Today seem quite solid and if they found the subject notable, we have no reason to differ. Andrew (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent at least half an hour trying to find it. I know I read it on Wikipedia, but I can only assume that it's been gotten rid of or reworded. I am going to withdraw this, but my AfD movement request in my second comment stands.--Laun chba ller 21:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia contributors have the same notability requirements as anyone else, and this AfD plainly fails WP:BEFORE. If you're not sure about a policy, ask at the help desk first: even if there were grounds for deletion, the world's not going to end if this article persists an extra day. Also, there's a lot of incorrectly numbered deletion discussions for different articles, and correcting them doesn't appear to be considered a priority (renumbering is likely to break links, disrupt logs, etc). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEED Act[edit]

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

Non-notable failed bill. Unlike NESARA, it (and any fictional counterparts) do not have significant commentary in reliable or notable sources. Almost all the article is interpretation of the text of the bill sourced to the bill, and some commentary about the subject of the bill (eliminating fractional reserve banking), not the bill, itself. I have seen little evidence that there is anything else. I would add that the fact, mentioned on the article talk page, the bill was proposed in previous sessions of Congress should be in the article, but I'm not sure that we can find a reliable source for that, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally agree with nominator. Major problems with article include original research and extreme reliance on primary sources. I did a web search and found little; there was an op-ed piece in the Huffington Post. There was discussion in the Epoch Times which looks like a fringe publication; the Washington Post had a vote tally here. Not much else, suggesting to me it does not meet the general notability guideline, but I may change my vote if more sources can be found, and the article trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tens of thousands of bills like this one die in committee every two years; since the defeat of Eric Cantor yesterday, this bill is even less likely to pass. The Epoch Times is a free newspaper distributed via boxes on street corners in New York City, Canada, and other places. IMHO it fails WP:RS. Amongst other weird topics, it pushes the conspiracy theory that John Liu is a commie. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead Thunder[edit]

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

Doubtful if they play in a fully professional league, as they play at the third tier of British rugby The Banner talk 17:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They play in a semi-professional league, Championship 1. All other clubs in that league have entries on Wikipedia. Championship 1 is recognised as the lowest tier of the professional game, and the league inlcudes some famous names from RL, e.g. Hunslet Hawks who in the past were one of the sport's top teams (see All four cups). Grinner (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notability is not temporary. Even if the third tier wasn't considered notable enough for club articles (which it is), Gateshead competed in the fully professional Super League, albeit briefly. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not make clear if the present Gateshead Thunder is a real successor of the Super League Gateshead Thunder or just a namesake claiming a bit of history. The Banner talk 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Define "real successor". Many sporting clubs have been through a number of incarnations, different legal structures etc (e.g. see Bradford Bulls). In any case Gateshead are notable by virtue of playing in a nationwide, semi-professional league in one of the UK's major spectator sports. Grinner (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But only when it is still the same club. The present text states that it is a totally new club, created after a merger. Not a legal change or so. Just a new club with an old name. The Banner talk 08:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is the definition of "club"? The legal entity may change several times, but the name, logo and supporters are really all the carries on: there are numberous examples of this. In any case, is it your contention that the 1999 (Super League) club deserves an entry, but the current club does not? All other Championship 1 clubs have entries, whether or not they have been in Super League. We have numerous semi-professional clubs on the wikipedia, eg. Shepshed Dynamo F.C., Dalry Thistle F.C. (random examples from football, could have selected from other sports.) Grinner (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the article itself definitely needs improving. But a quick look at the official website and news sources show that it is still considered to be the same club regardless of various takeovers/liquidations. The name, the crest and the stadium are all essentially the same, it's only the ownership/holding company that has changed over the years. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - what J Mo 101 said.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete this, its a small semi pro club, with small crowds, but has history and it is a worthwhile article. Szzuk (talk) 15:55, 11 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, closing prematurely because there have been a lot of votes and it's clear that this will not be deleted. -- Y not? 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James McNair[edit]

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

Article fails to credibly indicate subject's importance. The only sources are about one of the other people involved in the crash. Essentially, seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. G S Palmer (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently from what I've read he does have some notability, the article is in truly bad shape though. Williamb (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with G S Palmer. Sxg169 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Deletionists suck. Also, subject was a mentor to an extremely notable actor and comedian. Perhaps if given time (say, more than a couple of hours) the article can grow and expand. That won't happen if it is simply deleted within a few hours of being added to the site.68.144.172.8 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSearch filtering out recent results comes up with nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. Not a lot of info is known about this person, but more news might come out about his notablity as him being a member of the comedy community. There also could be a merger of infomation of this page into a seperate page about the accident if any conditions worsen or criminal charges are filed.--Riadse96 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. This subject has been noted by dozens of news sources both national and international. See noted references.User:Jimgerbig|→Jim — Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Keep or Merge — His role as mentor might ultimately satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER's “3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.”. Depending how the ongoing Morgan story unfolds, more reference material about McNair, related more to his life rather than just his death, may be published. No reason to rush to judgment on the question. As things presently stand, it seems like a difficult fit to try to merge McNair into the Morgan article. — Who R you? Talk 20:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Was a relatively well known standup comedian in his own right. The article needs to be updated significantly though. --LeeSawyer (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Although looks like it needs substantial updating.--171.66.216.4 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far, all I'm seeing is WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Where are the sources for his notability as a "relatively well known" comedian? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL – “Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.” — Similarly, People Magazine, NBC, CBC, US Magazine, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune, & CNN do not write articles about our deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc. (Just sayin’)
  WP:NOTINHERITED – “Notability requires verifiable evidence. This is why notability is not usually inherited, it can't be verified with evidence, only mere personal opinion…” — The number of RS stories where Jimmy Mack is the lead of the headline seems to indicate that there is at least some evidence of notability.
  WP:ONEEVENT – “When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both.” — The story has fairly quickly changed from "Actor Tracy Morgan in ICU After Crash" (NBC) to "Comic James 'Jimmy Mack' McNair Dead In Car Accident" (Huffington) & "Uncle Jimmy Mack Dies in Car Accident That Sent Tracy Morgan to Hospital" (People)
  The man wasn't famous, but he does seems to have been deemed “worthy of notice” (even if only after his death) by the mainstream media. The stories (now, a day later) aren't about the big crash, the Turnpike shutdown for 5 hours, the limo bus on it's side, etc; they're about Uncle Jimmy Mack who's dead now; and that seems pretty close to how WP defines whether or not someone meets the threshold of WP:Notability (people). Cheers — Who R you? Talk 08:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was known under the name "Uncle Jimmy Mack" and really deserved an article before the accident. See e.g. http://www.people.com/article/comedian-uncle-jimmy-mack-dies-tracy-morgan-accident I'm putting this up quickly, let the article grow, please stop the quick deletion craziness Doprendek (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Let's start keeping articles because they have potential rather than deleting them in order to prove that certain editors have the power to damn themMasterknighted (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the article wasn't created until after his death, doesn't mean he wasn't notable during his life. Pleny of Wikipedia articles only get started because someone creates an article based on a redlink they see in the "Deaths in [year]" page. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 08:25, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Keep Because, A: the man had a substantial entertainment resume both on and off screen and B: because the rules for notability are used so subjectively on Wikipedia. A person can be on 'Survivor' and do little else and keep an article, another person can have a long list of credits starting with The Real World or Road Rules and be deemed unnotable despite having a significant fanbase (i.e. Teck Holmes, who has parlayed his success on MTV into a number of movies and shows for other networks)
Keep Person is clearly notable... if the article needs work... do the work. Don't be lazy and ask for a delete.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The administrators here do not care if Jimmy Mack is known to many. If he is unknown to them, he is not notable. He should have had an article a long time ago.....198.24.6.168 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs a lot of work, but clearly notable in the media. A lot of notable people don't get documented attention until after they die. I don't think the intent of this article is to be a memorial page, but an attempt to document someone of note. Edit Ferret (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Liverpool John Lennon Airport Hotel[edit]

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

Notibility Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No rationale presented by the nominator. Notibility? What do you mean? Could you be a bit more vague? The article states it is a Grade II listed building, so that should pass some notability threshold. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just searched for the English Heritage listing and in fact it's Grade II*, not Grade II, which is quite a big difference as 92% of the 374,000 list entries are Grade II. Have corrected article and added listing as ref. Qwfp (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Reliable source coverage easily pushes it over the notability threshold. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider renaming. The building as an airport terminal is unquestionably notable, e.g. there's detailed discussion in Bob Hawkins, Gabriele Lechner, Paul Smith, Historic airports: proceedings of the international l'Europe de l'air Conferences on Aviation Architecture: Liverpool (1999), Berlin (2000), Paris (2001). English Heritage, 2005. Also Google books shows a lot of briefer coverage, in publications like Civil Engineering, American Aviation Historical Society Journal, and books on Liverpool history and architecture. It may also be an idea to rename the article to the terminal name which is more notable than the hotel name. A merge to Liverpool John Lennon Airport would be possible but it makes more sense to have information on the older airport in a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Grade II* listing alone makes it notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That said, the article really needs more reliable sources which are secondary.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grade II* listed building and former airport terminal building is plenty to establish notability. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. Obvious keep. Looks like snowball to me so happy for an early close. Szzuk (talk) 15:58, 11 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. Both sides in the debate have valid points and concerns, but ultimately, there's no consensus here at this time. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ann Cripps[edit]

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

The subject was an accommodation-house keeper, shopkeeper, postmistress and midwife. So she is notable because........???? Source gives no further clues. Emeraude (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having an entry in a country's dictionary of national biography is usually accepted as proof of notability for Wikipedia purposes. To quote the NZDNB, "Through all this work she made an essential contribution to the stability of an isolated community".17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

oops, mis-signed the aboveTheLongTone (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The NZDB includes examples of ordinary people who were early settlers with no actual claim to any notability. This has been covered before (but I can't find the discussion). I believe such cases as this were deemed to be non-notable but stand to be corrected. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a similar case where the AfD resulted in do decision, but can't find it now. However, what you say is certainly the case in this example. It seems there was an effort by the article's creator in 2012 to include every entry in the NZDB in Wikipedia; several I have come across in the last few days would not, on first glance, seem to scrape up the general level of notability required for Wikipedia (see, for example, Mary Anne Reidy, Susanna Hanan, Caroline Freeman, Joseph Frear (builder))

Comment Mary Anne Reidy got an MBE for her contributions as a nurse, has had a room at an RSA named for her, and a book was dedicated to her. Emeraude, as nominator of this AfD, you have either just demonstrated that you do not appear to understand the concept of Wikipedia:Notability (people), or you don't bother looking at the sources before you make those statements. And don't forget to sign your posts, please. Schwede 66 19:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commemt Mea culpa, I forgot to sign myself. Big deal. But this is not about Reidy. I just mentioned her as an example. Regardless, Reidy is borderline notable evne with what you have just mentioned; it is detail which is not in the article and, at this stage, amount to OR. Emeraude (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you regard reading the reference given in the article as original research, may I respectfully suggest that you don't put up further articles for deletion until you have become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices? Schwede 66 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Cripps was included in the DNZB because she was notable, rather than as an example of a particular class or trade as referred to by DerbyCountyinNZ. I have expanded her bio to make this entry more useful to readers of Wikipedia. Schwede 66 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as creator of these stubs, I'm not going to !vote, but would have had the article speedied if I thought the subject non-notable (one or two were speedied by myself shortly after creation, usually articles about indivdiuals who were part of a group / partnership). The closest I'm aware of that any of them have come to being deleted at AfD is Draft:Caroline Harriet Abraham. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have speedied articles that you created??? Are you sure?? Emeraude (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have requested articles that I've created be speedied. I'm sure someone more skilled in qurying the logs than I can find them. Part of the whole batch creation thing is accepting and removing errors promptly. See also the extensive consultation about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand/. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was a similar discussion about Ann Lovell which resulted in the article being kept -no concensus. I think if she made into NZDB then there is a reasonable level of notability in the NZ context. NealeFamily (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is NOT a New Zealand encyclopaedia. As for Ann Lovell, reading the article, what makes her notable beyond being with her husband who does not have an article? That her "forth" child was the first "European" born in the area? His child too. And the notability surely is for the child! The question has been raised before: how reliable is NZDB as a marker of general notability fro Wikipedia? Emeraude (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article has been expanded beyond all recognition since I recreated it, I feel I can now !vote. There are now multiple independent reliable third party sources (Petticoat Pioneers and DNZB) and I'm certatin there will be much more contemporary coverage once papers past gets move complete. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Morrow[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I thought about redirect but she's only been in what 2 eps of Icarly so seems rather pointless, Anyone delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. She's mentioned in articles on 2 iCarly seasons and on Sam & Cat, so I considered a redirect, but she's not mentioned in the iCarly main article and doesn't really belong in ICarly#Recurring characters since the characters there generally appeared much more often. I guess iCarly (season 3) as her first appearance would be the best redirect target but I really don't have a strong opinion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the mill actress who does not pass notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Seay[edit]

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

The article is fundamentally an advertisement for an individual and contains little to none encyclopaedic or notable content. Sekhem (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the nomination is dated 10 April 2014, it was not transcluded in the logs until today. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional - No independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional - No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Withdrawn by nominator.--Staberinde (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Centre for Defence and International Security Studies[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to support notability 1292simon (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Withdrawn by nominator'

Comment: Like this one? Or this? They're also mentioned in this document on senate.gov. Much as I know this is OR, I've just given their number a call and apparently they're no longer active. Dolescum (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts looking into this. I still don't think notability is established though. The ISN page doesn't provide any reasons for notability (the claim about oldest think tank in the UK would make it notable, but it appears it is untrue since the organisation was founded in the 1990s not the 1970s). The other references are just passing mentions, I reckon. 1292simon (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. There are also multiple mentions on the NATO website including a member being involved in implementing treaties with Kazakhstan, one on their involvement in assisting Ukraine modernize their military, and this document where the "passing mention" (citation 53) suggests they were working out NATO strategies for dealing with enemy ballistic missiles. Dolescum (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, good stuff. I will withdraw the AfD. 1292simon (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you all for your help with this! Shirt58 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Alexander Parin[edit]

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

This athlete does not appear to have played a match in the Hong Kong First Division League as yet. The sources indicate that he has only played for the Sun Hei SC reserve side. Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources currently listed in the article may not indicate that he has played in the Hong Kong First Division, but this does. As such the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes sports notability guideline. The Chinese reference confirms that he plays for 1st Division Sun Hei as does the external link. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, has played in an fully professional league

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Fighting Championships[edit]

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

MMA organization that never achieved any notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi nadjafikhah[edit]

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

Notability issues about the articles namesake, doesn't appear to meet speedy criteria and is referenced so cant PROD Amortias (T)(C) 11:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS h-index of 6 [1] does not really make WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. His citation counts in Google scholar are well below the top citations for the same subject (Burgers' equation) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 9 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 (withdrawn, non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Century's Episode 3: The Final[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability of this game. 1292simon (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Keep. According to Edge, It was a bestseller in Japan. I hate to do this, but I'm going to assume that there are enough Japanese sources to grant significant coverage. The article needs to be rewritten, but a WP:VG/RS custom Google search shows loads of potential sources. Some of those Japanese-language sources are bound to be reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:02, 8 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) 00:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the link. I agree, notability is now established.1292simon (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civic initiative Czechia[edit]

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

Topic does not appear to have received significant coverage. Article being used as a Coatrack to push another agenda. C 679 08:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. C 679 09:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed protection from the article, as it is at AfD, however it will have to be reprotected if the edit warring continues. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Sources are about "Czechia", not about this association.--Yopie (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable organization dealing with a fringe topic. Sourcing is telling. The coatrack and behavioural elements surrounding the editing of it are not themselves reasons to delete, but don't exactly help. Martinp (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found a few hits here and there, notably this which appears to be about the group rather than their proposed name for the Czech Republic. I also found a few mentions of their name in websites which discuss "Czechia" (which apparently does not have widespread public support), but overall there is a lack of reliable sources that significantly discuss the group. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A search using both of the initiative's Czech names found more hits (English only gives 25), but as I have no knowledge of Czech I have no idea if any of these are reliable and/or significant. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed some mentions in Czech, but some of them are not independent, and some located by google are actually about an unrelated organization "Obcasnska iniciativa Cesko bez koure", loosely "Civic initiative for a nonsmoking Czech Republic/Czech lands/Czechia" (take your pick!). By the way the prague post article in the unsigned Weak Delete above is a good find, but it is at most a passing mention about the group in an article covering the whole so-called controversy as a bit of a one-day wonder. Martinp (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The unsigned vote was actually my vote, I had forgotten to sign it. Oh well, fixed that now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Non-notable fringe topic, intended to push POV in favour of the foreign word "Czechia". RGloucester — ☎ 14:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same reasons that everyone else is giving. What little is here could be added to the Name of the Czech Republic.--Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lewis#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breasclete Primary School[edit]

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

NN small school that provides education for primaries 1-7. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lewis#Education. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cullen328. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Runnymede No. 271, Saskatchewan[edit]

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

No such rural municipality exists or existed according to Saskatchewan's Ministry of Municipal Relations: [2], [3] and [4]. A Google search for "Rural Municipality of Runnymede No. 271" -wikipedia yields no hits, while a search for "Runnymede No. 271" -wikipedia yields mirrors/forks yet no reliable sources. The listed community of Runnymede, Saskatchewan is actually within the Rural Municipality of Cote No. 271, which has the same assigned #, but this provincial source does not indicate there was a Runnymede No. 271 renamed to Cote No. 271. Hwy43 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non verifiable per nominator's links. No reliable sources found to establish notabiity. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cote No. 271 was created under this name in 1910. --Fralambert (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Bruce[edit]

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

Subject does not appear notable per WP:BIO. References are either not reliable, or do not reference the subject directly. Glocal World Entertainment section reads non-neutrally as well. Vaca tion 9 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Vacation9. The references are very reliable in the field of the subject, and back up the statements made. Either subject's name or subject's company name which is named clearly in article has been explicitly featured on highly credible music industry organizations such as Music Week, AIM, PPL, and Record of The Day. All of these are official sites of companies that are very notable in the music business field, all but one with their own wikipedia pages, and are listed in the reference boxes. References are included and clearly state either subject's name, company's name, or both. The Glocal World Entertainment section has been edited for the sake of neutralization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjthompson87 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references show any evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. One of the references is a Wikipedia article, and we should never reference one Wikipedia article to another. Other references are published by the subject or based on his company's press releases.Passing mentions on long lists don't count, as we need significant coverage. I see no evidence that this person is notable at this time. Maybe in the future, but not yet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Reference to wikipedia article should be removed. I agree that is a poor reference, not sure why they put that in there? Not too sure about the long list mention either, though I did see his name in the Music Week magazine on that list, however you had to be a subscriber to see it online. However, I see the rest of them as very credible, and they are all independent of each other. Only 1 reference is based on a 'press release' by his company, the rest are not, and regardless of that, all of them are reliable sources and do not just publish any press release unless it's coming from a very notable source that's worth publishing. Research companies referenced, all of them are very noteworthy and credible. For them to feature the name and/or company explicitly shows notability. These are not any old regular blogs. Those with knowledge on the music industry or have well researched references should contribute to this, as that's the area of expertise listed. Some adjustments needed, but not deletion surely. — San jay86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:17, June 8, 2014 (UTC).

There are no reliable, secondary, significant sources specifically citing Ryan Bruce for an accomplishment / achievement indicating notability per WP:BIO. Vaca tion 9 06:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree/Challenge 2 references have been removed, and information regarding one reference in the article have been removed. Accomplishments /achievements completely subject to definition, as not explicitly defined in WP:BIO. Notable references are listed citing past 'accomplishments' (notable music industry events held with credible firms showing endorsements as well as in attendance, and published on firm's outlets) - that is explicitly cited in numerous sources which are 100% independent are reliable in subject's field. This therefore notes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by San jay86 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please point to even a single example of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. I see none. The "Record of the Day" source, for example, is explicitly marked as a reprint of a press release, and is therefore not independent. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This account was created today and has no other edits outside this topic. Possible Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry. Vaca tion 9 13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion, perhaps tweaking I've seen a load of pages that have not been deleted with sources a lot less credible than this one (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Owusu). Subject has been cited in Music Week, Record of the day, AIM, and PPL, all referenced. What more sources do you need? That page I just posted has a bunch of youtube links as a reference and is up with no consideration of deletion. Tweaking perhaps, no deletion. Please understand the credibility of some of the companies references before you suggest that are neither reliable or independent. Commenting with no knowledge or without taking note of subject's field of expertise does not make for a good argument to suggest deletion. That's too harsh, subject seems noteworthy in field to be credited and endorsed by such companies, small or big mentions. — Twincity12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to try making arguments that are actually based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We don't keep non-compliant articles just because other non-compliant articles exist. That argument is weak. We have 4.5 million articles, and delete hundreds or thousands every single day. Maybe that other article should be deleted as well, but so what? This debate is about only one article, and that is Ryan J. Bruce. By the way, the "Record of the Day" source is a reprinted press release, and therefore contributes nothing toward notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This account was created today and has no other edits outside this topic. Possible Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry. Vaca tion 9 13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, and the appearance of multiple SPAs to argue the point isn't doing anything to improve my opinion. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. References all essentially about his company.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changes/improvements made Career from 2008-2013, and 2013-Present has been removed (with some of this info added to the 'Glocal World Entertainment' box), was no evidence or references to back-up personal career pre-"Glocal World Entertainment". Article is now primarily based on subject's career via his company, as all references refer to his doings with company. Also, new reference added citing subject and company. — Twincity12 (talk
Delete - While this is a nicely done page (having some of the hallmarks of paid work), I am not seeing the multiple independent published sources necessary for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The closing administrator should note indications of sockpuppetry in the debate. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems multiple revisions and improvements have been made to neutralise the article since creation. Article is more factual and does not necessarily act as promotion for subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Not seeing sufficient reasons for deletion, though sources could be a little stronger. No trash, personal blog sites appear to be used as references, they all seem legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you only get to !vote once. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Non-administrator comment) There are a gazillion redirects to this article which must also be deleted. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Taken care of. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Midha[edit]

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

All self-citations/primary sources in which she is the author. Her work has been reported in a cursory manner, but she has not been discussed in depth at all. The awards on her seem to be incredibly minor/not significant enough to pass WP:GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Balatant advertisement for a tarot reader/alternative healer who's various awards turn out to be either obscure or dubious. For example, the "women entrepreneurship award" turns out to one of many given out at a local nonprofit group's dinner. There's no record of any "national journalist award", her name is merely one of the metatags on that url. Generic honors like "Honour of excellence" and "Super achiever Award" cited to nothing aren't helpful in building confidence that this person is truly notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and LuckyLouie. I used the google search string "seema midha" (Tarot OR numerology OR Reiki OR Hypnosis) in my browser bar, checked out 8 SERP pages, did not find anything worthwhile. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten (metal band)[edit]

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

nn, self referential Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let this article be forgotten - Sources are going to be difficult to find because of the band's name, but all I could find were unreliable Blogspot pages. Time for the article to live up to the band's name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to locate coverage for this band in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 17:59, 10 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. This is not a headcount. Discounting all mere WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and all arguments that merely assert "he is notable, there are enough sources" without actually producing such, the sole policy-based conclusion of this debate is that those sources that are currently cited in the article fail to even prove his existence, and those sources that were adduced during this AfD – while demonstrating his existence – fail to substantiate his notability and do not (yet) contain enough biographical material to base an article on. While the person as such may not be a "hoax" as initially suspected (the news snippets that turned up during this debate do demonstrate he existed – or exists?, and internally we can certainly accept Tony's word for it that he was his father), the article as it stood clearly was a hoax creation, being based on multiple instances of crudely forged citations, which can only be explained through bad faith on the part of the initial creator.

Given the absence of anything safely sourceable at this point, deletion is the only option. No prejudice against re-creation if and when proper sources are found, but the current material is unsuitable even as a temporary basis for future work, so it is better to just start from scratch. If somebody wants to do that, please do so in a sandbox and ask for thorough review before moving back to mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquín Santiago[edit]

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

I don't know what exactly is going on with this article. The sources currently in the article do not in any way back up the information, as the few that are accessible make no mention of Santiago at all. Marine_69-71 (talk · contribs) claims that he has some information (see User_talk:Marine_69-71#Joaqu.C3.ADn_Santiago), but is mostly unable to use it since he doesn't know its origins. A search on Google for "Joaquín Santiago" + "Teatro Puerto Rico" gives no hits outside Wikipedia mirrors, and his name does not show up on Google Books.

He may still have a claim to notability, but the fishy sourcing of this article has me suspicious, and the lack of availability of reliable sources that do mention him is a major concern. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does indeed look like a hoax. The account which created the article has done nothing before and since. Andrew (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Out of loyalty and respect of my father. However, the deletion issues are understandable as I have discussed the issue with User: TenPoundHammer. I quote:

Hi TenPoundHammer, yes I reverted your removal of my father in the Teatro Puerto Rico article. Let me explain myself. My father is no hoax, as Damiens claims. I am not sure, but I believe that you or someone else emailed me under the name of Roberto Blondet, claiming to admire my work and asking questions about my father's article and that if the theater. It is difficult to find these old 1950s sources, but I do have the clippings from some old Hispanic papers and photos (A little yellowish) in my possession. If you are interested and if you have a fax number I can fax them to you or mail you copies and you can see for yourself that my dad was the real deal. Maybe you can give me a idea has how to use them as a source.Tony the Marine (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC) That's the thing. I didn't write the article and as a personal policy I do not interfere with the articles written by others nor do I regularly check up on them since I do not include them in my "watchlist". I agree with you on that source, where did the creator of the article get that from? The situation is that I have the newspaper clippings, but my father did not bother to include where they came from, I also the front pages of "Ecos de Broadway" from 1953 and 1954, plus photos of my father on stage with the mike. Besides, if I cite them, my friend Damians will right out and cite "COI". Look, if someone wants to put the article for AfD, well what ever, but not as a "hoax" just because there is a lack of cyber evidence. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Tony the Marine (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not a hoax, and sufficient sources exist. Redirect to Tony Santiago while the sourcing is improved, if absolutely necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? I've not found anything which checks out yet. For example, the article claims that "In 1958 Santiago danced in, and choreographed, the feature film Crowded Paradise...". There's a detailed list of credits for this movie online but the subject isn't in them. Even if this person did exist, it looks like a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The fact that the person worked in showbiz and so can drop a lot of names of people who are actually notable, doesn't make them notable too. Andrew (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: What sources? Did you not hear me say that the sources currently in the article are totally bogus and do not mention him at all? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb:, the "sources" used in the article do not support the sentences they're attached to. The article was created by once by a single purpose account that made it look like a well sourced article, but it's not. Take a look. --damiens.rf 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax. Online sources may be hard to find, but given time the article can be better sourced and improved upon. Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: So we can just let it sit, full of sources that are clearly misinforming and do not actually mention the content at all, while Google throws up its hands and says "I never heard of you"? Where do you expect the sources to just magically sprout from? The article's already had seven years; how many more does it need? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, among other things. I'm not seeing anything particularly notable he's done, even if we take everything in the article at face value without proper sourcing. Having some association with Jose Feliciano fails due to WP:NOTINHERITED. ~~Not being a hoax (as yet unproven) wouldn't do it either.~~ (However, we should hold off on the NOTMEMORIAL - the guy's still alive.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, let's cut the "Hoax" BS out of respect of my father and myself, a long time member of Wikipedia. He may not be notable and that is fine with me. Now, there is one thing that I find amazing and bewildering is that all of a sudden I have received two emails from "Richie Blondet" (Whom I thought was named "Roberto"). I am going to share them with those who here may be interested regardless of the outcome, because it seems that he may have some information in regard to the issue.

Hi Tony!

First off, thank you so much for replying and for sharing your story. With regards to Wikipedia, I have yet to this day, and probably never, edited or written anything on Wikipedia. For the same reasons you've described. It's entirely too easy for anyone to just come in and EDIT anything that has been written. It wouldn't be so bad if people followed the Wiki guidelines and abided by their standards, but apparently, there's folks out there who want to be legends in their own times/minds and it messes up everything.

I know your dad isn't a hoax because I am familiar with photography and newspaper articles where he is mentioned along with the actor "Chucho" Montalban, actress Maria Felix, and band leaders Rafael Munoz and Luis Del Campo, along with others who performed at the Theater. I know people who performed there who knew this man. I have no clue who that person is that you've mentioned.

I happen to be a collector of our culture and have photos of the theater's interior, as well as the exterior showing the marquee. I can forward these to you if you'd like.

Richie Blondet

BTW-I would love to see any of those copies of older newspaper clippings. If you send me your P.O. Box, or mailing address, I'll send you a S.A.S.E. so you won't have to $$$. Along with some copies of articles/clipping that I saved that talked about the theater. Believe it or not, the theater itself seemed to be well or decently documented. I've found stuff on it on old Billboard Magazine and, especially, the old La Prensa and El Diario newspapers. I also have a bunch of photos and copies of photos that were given to me of many of the celebrities who performed there. A lot of flyers/posters/advertisements as well.

I totally understand where you're coming from about being able to substantiate a lot of things. But I think with the proper "content" and having you or your dad touch on it and giving it proper context, you can attain as much credibility just by being able to connect the dots that way.

Again, thank you so much for your kind attention and I am sorry to hear you're dealing with this. Have you ever considered publishing your Teatro Puerto Rico articles or info into a book form. Nowadays, with the technology, you can just launch an eBook and you don't have to deal with the cost of publishing the traditional way [print].

PS-Is your father still with us? Meaning, is he still alive?

Thanks and best regards,

Richie

Tony the Marine (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes -- unintentionally, and through no one's fault -- a cultural bias can creep into the choices we make. Joaquín Santiago was extremely well known in the Puerto Rican community of New York during the 1950s - before the establishment of the internet, and outside the radar of New York's "mainstream" press. The many headlines and articles from El Diario La Prensa during that period (and El Imparcial and El Mundo on the island of Puerto Rico) were not preserved by the U.S. academic establishment, in the same way that New York Times, Daily News, Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety were preserved.

As for "working in showbiz and dropping a lot of names," it appears that Joaquín Santiago did much more than that. He developed theatrical venues, staged entire productions, wrote and produced radio shows, discovered and managed world-class talents. Ed Sullivan, Ted Mack, Steve Allen, Larry King, Dick Cavett and even Johnny Carson, Jay Leno and David Letterman essentially did the same thing: hosted talent shows without "being" the primary talent themselves. They simply did it in a more familiar cultural context (English-speaking U.S. shows) and a larger media frame (prime-time and late-night television).

Similarly, during his short life span of 33 years Brian Epstein managed essentially one client (the Beatles) and Colonel Tom Parker is known for one primary client (Elvis Presley). Are they dismissed as non-notable because they had basically one client, or because they merely "worked in showbiz and dropped names?" No, they are not.

Jack Lescoulie, Les Crane, Hy Gardner...these are not exactly household names. Were they removed from Wikipedia as "not notable?" No, they weren't.

Joaquin Santiago's career is no less culturally significant, and his life's work is no less meaningful, than any of the above-named gentlemen. In fact, Santiago's work is arguably more significant than these other individuals, because it provided a cultural lifeline to an otherwise forgotten and ignored heritage. Joaquín Santiago played a major role in preserving Puerto Rican cultural heritage, under nearly insurmountable odds, at a time when being Latino was not "fashionable." Let's work on the citations in this Joaquín Santiago article -- but please, let us not diminish the contribution and significance of another man's work, merely because it does not register as brightly on (an already skewed) cultural radar screen. Sarason (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery - and for those who have insulted my father and myself by stating that he is a "hoax", here is a gallery which even if deleted should bring to an end such remarks

Joaquin Santiago gallery with some press references

Teatro Puerto Rico MC Joaquín Santiago with Sara Montiel
The "Ecos de Broadway" of 1954, announces the inauguration of the radio show "Heraldos de las Antillas" with Joaquin Santiago and Fini Carpas.
Various newspaper clippings announces the participation of Joaquin Santiago in the Musical Comedy "Dem Dry Americana".
Teatro Borinquen describing Joaquin Santiago as the best Masters of Ceremony who will sing act and present the show.

Can you provide hi-res scans of these clippings? These could be very useful to provide supporting sources.Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idea Cwobeel. I reloaded and enlarged the Clippings page and ECO's de Broadway. I just hope that with the new PX's, that they can be well seen. Just click on the image and click to see the enlarged clippings. Remember, though understandable, they are in Spanish, Tony the Marine (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have written articles about pre-internet radio and vaudeville people such as Dan Daniels and Gustav Walter (impresario). In my experience, it's always possible to turn up something online even if you're going back over 100 years. If this can't be done for the subject then this indicates that they are not notable enough for our purposes. Editors who are here because they are related to the subject or wish to promote Puerto Rican history have a blatant conflict-of-interest per WP:SOAP. Andrew (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen in quite some time. "If no sources can be found on the Internet, they are not notable enough for our purposes"–yeah, he really did say that. Fortunately, this is directly contradicted by policy. The "COI" and "SOAP" comments are every bit as absurd. Sarason has made a cogent point regarding systemic bias in Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (a Wikipedian in good standing of 10 years) isn't here to puff up his father. He's–rightfully–pissed off at the fact that people continued to allege that his father is a "hoax", even after he repeatedly corrected them. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree for the most part with you Andrew. As a personal policy I do not interfere with the articles written by others nor do I regularly check up on them since I do not include them in my "watchlist". However, I am not going to stand around and let people insult my father by calling him a hoax. Would you? I don't care who considers defending the honor of one's father a blatant conflict-of-interest, because this is not the case. If anyone believes that he is not notable and wants the article deleted, well OK, but no one has the right to call him a "hoax", OK? Where does the "here because they are related to the subject or wish to promote Puerto Rican history " come from? I am not here to promote the subject, just to show that he is the real thing, plus I am not here to promote "Puerto Rican" history. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the 2+1⁄2 years since this article was created, I see only one edit by Tony the Marine - and that is an extremely minor edit. I therefore see no COI editing here. Certainly Tony the Marine cannot be accused of COI for responding to the Deletion notice, especially since he has documentation which helps others to make their determination. The documentation in the "gallery" is indeed helpful, and does not constitute COI editing of the page itself.

I cannot assign much weight to the complaint about "promoting Puerto Rican history." The Wikimedia Foundation has honored Tony the Marine precisely for his contributions in this area -- not for "promoting" Puerto Rican history, but for documenting and preserving it with sources, citations, and thorough and copious research. I would submit that there is a great and vital distinction, between COI editing and knowing what you are talking about. Sarason (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing that can't be resolved with a trip to a library with a microfiche archive. If people here are so worried about sources, just tag paragraphs with {{cn}} and give editors a chance. It may take time, so what, if anybody in a rush?. But to delete an article because there are no online sources it is an aberration. Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to keep biographies of living people awaiting for sources like that. --damiens.rf 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Unless the material is contentious, there is no reason to delete. Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a policy: WP:BLP. And it helps to keep wikipedia free from fake self-promotion articles. --damiens.rf 13:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we can exercise editorial common sense too. I don't see this article any close to a self-promotion piece. Those type of articles are pretty obvious when you see them. Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. The article attributes a lot of achievements to this Mr. Santiago, like discovering (really) famous artist as kids and being the driving for behind the (also inflated) success of a music hall back in the 50ths. --damiens.rf 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This Mr. Santiago", really Damiens?

External videos
This "Mr. Santiago", as you call him was intervied by News 12 (Reliable enough?) about Sarita Montiel and the Teatro Puerto Rico here

Let me remind you, that the Puerto Ricans who moved to the United States in the 1950s, were the pioneers of the those who were to follow them and that is why there is a lack of news coverage of their initial achievements in the English language American newspapers. Those interested can listen to the NEWS 12 interview of my father which I have provided. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia accepts news coverage in other languages as references. Just provide them. And please understand that it's no use to take things personally here. --damiens.rf 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With this piece of local news coverage Marine provided we now have a reference for (1) Joaquim Santiago shared the stage with Sara Montiel in Theatro Puerto Rico for 3 days in 1954 and (2) Joaquim Santiago is a radio producer. This may not be enough to support notability, but it's so far the only referenced information we have about him. --damiens.rf 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear about the "self-promotion" allegation. It is clear that Tony the Marine was not involved in the editing of this Joaquín Santiago article. Is someone alleging that Joaquín Santiago wrote this article himself? Is there any evidence for this? If not, then we need to drop this term "self-promotion" because there is no evidence for it - and thus it does not apply here. Sarason (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not "self", but the article obviously promotes the subject. And it has been worse before. --damiens.rf 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this has way too many holes in the sourcing to pass muster, many refs do not at all support the supposed facts. It is unfortunate that reliable media sources in the 50's didn't cover these 'pioneers', however exceptions should not be made or standards ignored to compensate. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN:

Is a non-registered user allowed to vote in an AfD? If not, then please ignore the vote immediately above. Thank you. Sarason (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they is. If not, admins would know and they wouldn't need a note in bold. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for educating Sarason for me, otherwise I would have struck his comments. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO NON-ADMINS:

This is not a VOTE. Anyone is allowed to provide arguments. Arguments will never be ignored, but judged by their merit. Thank you. --damiens.rf 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it not unusual to post full content of emails as above? Also I find the creation of the article suspicious, a new account operated by an obviously experienced editor appears & creates this article over a day or two, then disappears. Smells like a sock.94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable media sources did cover these pioneers; in this case, they are largely offline sources. Offline sources are every bit as acceptable as online sources. The nominator complains about "the few that are accessible", and one of the votes to delete has opined that a lack of online sources is a valid reason to delete an article–it is not. No policy-compliant reason to delete has been put forth by anyone yet. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - We are assessing notability here and the lack of online sources is indicative. For example, there's no shortage of online sources for the Teatro Puerto Rico but the subject doesn't seem to show up in any of them. If there were some indication that there were significant offline sources then you might have a point but there isn't as the cuttings above aren't good enough. They are so thin that even name-checking the subject in another article is probably undue weight. They are quite inadequate to support the puff-piece we have here. Andrew (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Joefromrandb:, the problem is not about "online sources". The article used a lot of "offline" source (books, magazine) but they were fake sources, that do not cover what they were supposed to.
  - Someone with an obvious ax to grind tag-bombing the article makes them "fake sources"? Sure, sure. Whatever the case, very real sources have been provided here on this page, but I guess that's all part of this horrible conspiracy to get this "fictitious" person into Wikipedia. Unbelievable! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- After checking the history of the anon-user above, I now realize that I was trolled by an IP-sock. I'll leave my comments in place, as they're still germane to the issue at hand. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see nothing in that history that warrants the "trolling" comment. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - An obvious sockpuppet making accusations of sockpuppetry isn't trolling? Come on, Doctor, you're better than that. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not obvious to me. If you can name them, name them, and I'll be glad to have a look. Or start an SPI. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't even begin to name them, but I know that when someone's very first edit is to WP:AN, that person has been here before. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it difficult to accept the validity of many of the arguments here when the very first footnoted comment, that the subject "discovered and promoted" Feliciano, is not verified in the citation at all. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get a few things straight here.
- I see no reason to suspect socking--so the creator, RingLardnerIII is an SPA from way back when. That's not evidence of anything, only that they had one interest, wrote the article, and then left. No reason to suppose Tony or anyone else had anything to do with it.
- By a similar token, there is no reason to call anyone a troll. That an IP may make their first edit to AN may suggest (may) that they are not a new user--but their comments aren't trolling (even if wrongfully accusatory).
- Speaking as an editor, it's clear to me that the article suffers/suffered from inflated claims that aren't verified by the provided sources, or that may have insufficient/unreliable sourcing. That's troubling, and may sway anyone toward delete.
- By a similar token, that doesn't mean it's a hoax, so let's have no more talk of that.
- Tony's zeal is well-known but that doesn't mean their comments are invalid. Still, copying emails and other commentary in an AfD is not helpful. That someone emails them to say "hey, certainly notable" doesn't make the article stronger, and a short clip of a telephone interview on the local news doesn't help much either. Sorry, but local news, it's just that--local news. And that someone is interviewed doesn't mean they made someone else a star, or are a star in their own right.
Back to the beginning: let's not let this get nasty. Personal attacks help no one. If this article is to be saved it's by improving it and showing that reliable sources establish notability. If there are no sources, there can be no proven notability, even if that's the result of "skewed" historiography: that's sad but true. The burden on the "keep" voters, and I'm speaking as an admin now, is to prove that the sources that are available prove notability, and tackling the verifiably inflated Feliciano claim would be a start. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr.Mies, I assure you I am neither sock nor troll. As to the creation of the article, as has already been noted so very many of the sources fail verification. Some of these claims are private details of Santiago Sr. such as info about his birth/sibs/schooling/employment/connection to the Teatro/residence etc etc. Who could know such intimate details of the man without recourse to sources? Close friend? Family member? I do not believe it is the work of a paid article service such as Wiki-PR/Morning277, but somebody has spun such a cloud of fluff & puff in order to make an MEMORIAL about a non-notable person. rgds 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One thing is to question the lack of online sources, but what I find unnecessary is all the drama created by dropping the hoax descriptor. I think if you are going to throw personal accusation of forgery you must have a strong argument beside the fact of failed verification. So indeed this has become personal. The only solid fact here, besides the wiki-lawyering is that the subject is indeed notable but we lack online sourcing for the time being. --Jmundo (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do accept offline sources to support "the subject is indeed notable". Do you know any such source? --damiens.rf 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is ridiculous. Maybe this Joaquin Santiago did not discover the so-called Feliciano person. Maybe the author of the article was misinformed. This is not a reason in itself to nominate the article for deletion. It seems to me that this person did play a part in the introduction of early Hispanic culture in the Bronx sector of New York. What had to be done in the first place was place "citation needed" in the areas that needed them and remove the material which could not be verified and/or re-write the article. You all should not rush into things and conclussions. Plus, some of you should stop indirectly creating an unfounded speculation as to the articles author since that is not the subject, it adds nothing to this discussion and is distastful. 74.202.196.178 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would remain in this article once we remove all unreferenced claims? --damiens.rf 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, "the so-called Feliciano person", that's more than a little short-sighted, and insulting to boot. We're talking about José Feliciano, who is a huge star, and if the claim in the lead is correct (I still haven't seen evidence of it) than we have pretty much immediate notability. So, speaking of "distasteful", please don't use such language. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have no reliable source (online or offline) that supports what is said on this biography. There's a lot of reference footnotes, but they simply fail to support what is said on the article. --damiens.rf 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes. I am the grandson, but I have to say shame on you, Damiens, you know perfectly well that if you removed unreferenced content you could at least convert the article into a "stub" and let others expand it. I mean you should know because you have experience in doing that to Puerto Rican related articles. Here is an example of how you removed content from the article of "Lucecita Benitez" and converted it into a "stub": Before and After. Antonio Martin (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Zambrano[edit]

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

Non-notable as an Architecture or sculptor. No significant media coverage. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When an article lists childhood painting prizes it is unlikely to be on solid notability ground. In this case, refining a Highbeam search to Manila newspapers brought up two passing mentions in respect of assisting students, but that merely confirms his teaching role. No evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability, either via WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC. AllyD (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the analysis by AllyD. I was reminded that I was given an art award as a child by a famous stained glass artist. I would never consider that as a claim of notability. I see no evidence that this person is widely considered a leading figure in architecture. Wikipedia is not a directory of every architect, lawyer, doctor, dentist and accountant in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really see any claim of notability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I found sources in the Philippine Star and the Sun Star but it does not look like it adds up to WP:GNG. Problem is Philippine media is often hard to search.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kosa[edit]

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

After consideration, a speedy deletion tag and BLP PROD, and the recommendation of editors on my talk page, I am nominating this article for deletion, for the following reasons:

Article subject does not appear to be notable.(WP:N)
There are no sources. (WP:V), and they are unlikely to be found. Search Google, and you see self published sources and other primary sources.
The article appears to be an autobiography, or a biography of a relative/friend.(WP:AUTOBIO) Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 02:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per above. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 02:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)_{Striken own !vote to avoid impression of double voting}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable second or third sources found that could provide Notability. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sources. Quick google search of mainstream Filipino media (such as the Philippine Star) found no mentions. It is possible there are sources in Philippine rap media; if so they should be added soon (and I may change my vote). Until then, article fails the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:36, 9 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) 08:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qayyum Inamdar[edit]

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

Non-notable biography of a living person. Prod tag removed by IP. --Finngall ^talk 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A man who inherited his family business and is a member of local trade associations; no evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability found. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable businessman, no credidible assertion of notability & can find nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. No evidence of significant press coverage. Written very much like a puff piece for promotion of this individual. There's also a question of conflict of interest as the main contributor has a username very similar to the article's title. Cowlibob (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and is a puff piece.--MONGO 19:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. The subject appears to not meet WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, vague and insignificant article. It seems he holds some positions but nothing solid and no sources to accompany it. Multiple searches found nothing aside from one lahoreworld.com link that I didn't click but I'm going to presume it's not enough. Nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sunray[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No significant independent coverage to be found anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 21:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable musician, Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:07, 8 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, there is one source in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lola...Érase una vez[edit]

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

Not notable: lacks sources and coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1292simon (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep popular Mexican telenovela with adequate coverage. Did you even look? --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I missed them, all I found was entries in the Billboard charts for a couple of its songs. I'm happy to withdraw the AfD if you can provide WP:RS. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 00:52, 9 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Messing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline - I think he squeaks by with his work. My concern is that there may be a lack of sources about him. If the author of the article can provide more sources aside from imdb. I will vote to keep. Otherwise, delete. Bali88 (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:23, 8 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elicited Personal Information Retrieval[edit]

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

Lack of established notability. I checked all the references in this article for citation counts in GScholar (which tends to overestimate them compared to, say, CiteSeer) and except for Teevan et al., which is not about the main topic at all, only two have received more than a handful of citations. The only one actually mentioning "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval" is the paper "Shared Files – The Retrieval Perspective", which is a pre-print of a paper that has apparently not yet been published (the PDF says it has been accepted by JASIST, but I couldn't find it there). It is also the only GScholar hit for "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval". This in turn cites some earlier papers by the same authors as describing EPIR research, but only one of those has received more than 20 citations.

For reference, in the field of HCR, 20 citations is not a lot: see Whittaker's profile, or even Bergman's for that matter.

MS Academic Search doesn't turn up any hits for "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close enough to original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough reviewing. Note however that the papers which used the EPIR research method are fairly new, and it takes time for papers to be cited. I think that it would be more appropriate to judge these papers by the impact factor of the journals that accepted them. Three of these papers were accepted to JASIST which has the highest impact factor (2.005) of all information behavior journals, two to PUC with a lower but still relatively high impact factor of 1.133, and one to the most important HCI conference called CHI with a typical acceptance rate of ~20%. Note also that the EPIR research method enabled 6 different publications in the short time that it is used. There is also an earlier paper which used EPIR called 'Easy on that trigger dad: a study of long term family photo retrieval' with 56 citations according to Google Scholar, which I would like to add to the entry. The reason that MS Academic Search doesn't turn up any hits for "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval" is that all these papers but ref 1 (which is accepted to JASIST but not published yet) did not use this term, although you can clearly see in their Method section that they had used it. If not deleted, I intend to link the 'Personal Information Management' Wikipedia entry to this one in order to enable other PIM scientists use this method. I think that even if just one young student would read this entry and used EPIR in his/her Ph.D. study, than we did our bit. For your discretion, ebeloo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebeloo (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something being too new to be notable means it's too soon to write an article about it. As for the impact factor vs. citation count, the latter is our habit and fits well into the "too soon" policy. (This is an argument from precedent, because there is, AFAIK, no inclusion policy regarding scientific topics.)

Instead of deleting, we can also move it to your namespace so it can be moved back to mainspace later or merge the content into another article, e.g. Steve Whittaker. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed to establish notability. In five years maybe the topic will have established notability and a new article may be submitted. --Bejnar (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Panic! at the Disco discography. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panic! at the Disco Video Catalog[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This album provides no sources and so little information which is hardly worth having its own article. --Wudumindif (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 13:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Panic! at the Disco discography, where this release is listed. I'm unable to find coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 05:05, 5 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, czar ♔ 00:22, 8 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Chopra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are few and thin, include press release and self-pub. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has enough coverage from sources to be notable. Article could do with an overhaul to remove the primary sources and trivia. 1292simon (talk) 23:40, 7 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, czar ♔ 00:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is information on the subject relating to his work in comics (e.g., this L.A. Times piece), Channel One (New York Times and L.A. Times), his book Walking Wisdom (e.g., USA Today), and the documentary he directed. On the whole, enough coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Gongshow talk 02:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow who's found a few sources, The article needs tidying but that can be fixed. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:10, 8 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 Panic! at the Disco discography. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing... Panic at the Disco[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This album provides no sources and so little information which is hardly worth having its own article. --Wudumindif (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query - hey Wudumindif, I understand (and agree with) most of your nomination but I can't work out how this might fail WP:CRYSTAL. The article suggests the album was released in 2008. What are we supposed to by crystal-balling by having an article? Stalwart111 03:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Panic! at the Disco discography. I can't find coverage to warrant a standalone article (per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS). Redirects are cheap, this is a plausible search term, and the release is mentioned at the band's discography page, so a redirect seems reasonable. Gongshow talk 02:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to discog page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 8 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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TH Road[edit]

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

Non-notable road. Taking to AfD after prod tag was removed without explanation by IP with no previous edits. --Finngall ^talk 13:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. Nothing found that would indicate notability via Google search. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's so important that it doesn't even have its own reference .... Wow ... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 10:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there might be something lost in the translation from Assamese, I am not seeing anything on this road in an English-language spin around Google. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 8 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.