Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 March	9 March >

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, consensus that subject does not meet WP:N at current time. Samir 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Menezes Neves[edit]

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

He's certainly the president of a local IIBA chapter, but I don't think this qualifies for default notability. Outside of his activities there I'm unable to find any news coverage, and can't find publishing details on any of his books - although he has been offhandedly mentioned in a couple of IIBA-published books by other authors. Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 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 March 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 15 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongpoint[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICDEF Derek Andrews (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The topic is notable, being documented in detail in sources such as the Combat Leader's Field Guide or Soviet Field Fortifications. The page is a new one and should therefore be developed rather than deleted, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to this document (US Army Field Manual), "strongpoint" is another term for "battle position". However this source differentiates between strongpoint and battle position as different terms. It was in use in the 1920s in the this source. There's an Army Corp of Engineer newspaper(?) called StrongPoint (unrelated probably). There are a lot more sources with Google Books search military strongpoint. I think Andrew is correct it would better to give it a chance to develop given the available sourcing. Note that "Strong points" was previously listed at List_of_military_tactics#Defensive_tactics - if not Keep, worst case looks like fortification for a redirect. -- GreenC 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG-notable military concept. See books here, here, here; see also sources and discussion above. The nominator should be more familiar with WP:BEFORE. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Strongpoint" is a generic military term with no fixed definition at all so this is a dictionary definition The term basically means a relatively strong defensive position which acts to buttress nearby weaker defensive positions (or an area which is poorly suited to defensive tactics), but there's no fixed definition of what a "strongpoint" is. For instance, a "strong point" can be a two man light machine gun team in a foxhole supporting a squad of men in nearby foxholes armed with rifles or an huge underground fortress complex in the Maginot Line. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongpoint" is a generic military term with no fixed definition at all so this is a dictionary definition. The logic there is flawed. A topic doesn't need a "fixed defintion", that is why we have the multiple POV policy. For example some of these sources do show strongpoint has a "fixed" definition (not just a general term), but that fixed definition may change depending on the source. There are multiple POVs over time and place. Finally the strong WP:GNG evidence shows this topic is notable, while DICDEF is more of a content level essay and AfD is a topic level discussion. -- GreenC 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see its listed in the regular dictionary. [1] So this is a real thing. Listing significant military strongpoints throughout history would be a good improvement for the article. Already got the one in the famous Greek battle listed there. 556 Wikipedia articles use the word "strongpoint". I'll see what I can add to the article. Dream Focus 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Nick-D points out above, this is, in fact, a WP:DICDEF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A military strongpoint is a quite specific thin , discussed in any number of books on tactics. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm rather conflicted about relisting this. It's quite possible I should have just closed this as keep, but the arguments that this is a dictdef seem pretty strong to me, so I'll just give people another week to work on this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suppose to judge consensus, not cast a supervote based on your personal opinion, nor stretch out the debate longer just to hope more people who agree with you show up and comment. Dream Focus 00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lobbying users to "work on" a certain POV isn't very fair at all. RoySmith why don't you just make a !vote if you have a strong opinion that is not supported by current consensus, as you correctly noted. -- GreenC 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew and DGG; this is a concept amenable to encyclopedic discussion, and the article is not innately a mere dictionary definiton. Having said that, I think the admin's decision to relist this was a reasonable exercise of discretion, since articulate arguments had been offered on both sides and the numerical !vote at the time was 5 to 3, not an overwhelming margin. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a real and important concept that (as far as I know) isn't covered by other Wikipedia articles, and is amenable to being covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Orser67 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This feels like a dictionary definition and I really don't think it is expandable. That said, I'm not sure that deletion would improve the encyclopedia and can see an argument for an IAR keep. Carrite (talk) 22:11, 11 March 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.

Okay. This AfD has a clear consensus to delete, but I am going to perform the close this way: I am going to move this to the Draft namespace (we have it for a reason, so le'ts use it) and move-protect it to avoid somebody single-handedly moving it back to mainspace. I won't leave a redirect, and I will salt Mariah Carey's 14th Studio Album to avoid it being recreated. → Call me Hahc21 15:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey's 14th Studio Album[edit]

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

Don't be fooled by that impressive source list: they aren't about the album. There are two year old publicity quotes about an album she was making two years ago. There are sources about a single that was released two years ago. There are sources that claim that after she releases the album she will tour to support it (not a big surprise). But there's no confirmed title. There's no track list. There's a supposed release date, but it's the fifth announced release data for the album, which means that it has no credibility whatsoever. The album is vapour, the article is about vapour. Per WP:NALBUMS and the ever popular essay WP:HAMMER, this thing needs to be deleted and stay deleted until there is a title and a release date and a confirmed tracklist. —Kww(talk) 22:26, 8 March 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 March 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:HAMMER. This is a bit of a crystal ball. I wouldn't oppose incubation, but considering that most of the article is padded press releases and speculation, it's probably better to start from scratch (if and) when the album is actually about to be released. Adabow (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should put on popcorn for this one. There's going to be an interesting article section when it finally comes out about the pre-release delays, running through the timeline of each announced event. Until it's out it's a case of wp:CRYSTAL and probably not suitable for inclusion as an article. But there are a lot of links there so Incubate and when it's out we'll have all of them to hand to create a good article. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the incubator has been closed as a failed project.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation can still be carried out in the Draft namespace. See WP:DRAFTS. Adabow (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point, although there are drafts (as Adabow points out). That said, I'd rather redirect than delete because it keeps the log intact for other people to work from when we get an album. Or if. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article has been the biggest violation of WP:CRYSTAL for the last two years. Drafting can be done as Adabow points out. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Incubate - It's being released in eight weeks guys. Less than two months. So many other artists album article are open for way longer prior to release. What's the point of deleting an article that will have to be recreated potentially very soon. What if she drops the track list next week? It will have to be recreated again. As you said, this article has existed for two (because Mariah has pushed it back about three times now), so what will another seven/eight weeks do to harm anyone? Seriously. — ₳aron 11:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that because two years ago ~~you~~someone created it when ~~you~~he should have known better, we might as well keep it around? There's no reason to believe that any of the material in this article has any relationship to the final product, which is why ~~you~~ he shouldn't have created an article about it. WP:NALBUMS is a guideline precisely because of problematic articles like this one.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Note that Calvin999 only created the redirect, not the main body of the article—Kww(talk) 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. How was I supposed to know that she would delay it three times in two years? I'm pretty sure I created it and redirected it anyway. A lot of the info in this article is relevant to it. What's the point in deleting all the info to only have to recreate it again. You know that if this article is deleted, it won't stop IP editors from recreating it under various different titles, which will just being more hassle. I've voiced my opinion, I don't expect you to agree, but I also don't expect you to be sarcastic and trolling. I don't see why this is only becoming an issue now, when the album is not far from being released. — ₳aron 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, Calvin, you did know that the album didn't have a confirmed title, tracklist, and release data, and I'm certain that you knew that was and is the general standard for when an article should be created. I'm sorry you see sarcasm in my comments: it's actually frustration.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with creating a redirect for a future article. I'm pretty sure I didn't create it and put info in it straight away. It was so long ago now. Like I said, the album is about to be released very soon. This whole discussion is pointless now. We are arguing over the deletion of something that in a few weeks will be created again. 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Here in statements like this lies the greatest problem pertaining to this article. How do you know that in a few weeks time the album will be released? If there was an official confirmation and track listing and shipment dates and all, then it would not have violated CRYSTAL, however, Carey has delayed the project for whatsoever reasons umpteen number of times to warrant any faith that it can be used to keep the article since there will be an album. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mariah Carey or Delete for now. When name of album is revealed, it can be recreated. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A new article can be created after the title and track listing is announced. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We have waited for two years, and the release was delayed and delayed for times. All I have seen here is WP:CRYSTAL. When the title is officially announced (promoted) and the final tracklisting is revealed, the article can be re-created. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it's going to be released shortly and even a quick glance at the article shows that there is plenty of relevant information that makes it a notable topic. Since Kww has noted that this is the fifth announced release date, I would reconsider my stance if this release does not happen as planned. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While the keep arguments are solidly rooted in policy (notably the fact that their latest collaborative album with a notable artist charted up to 2nd on Billboard 200, undeniably satisfying point two of our guideline on music-related notability), the delete opinions correctly point out a rather thin amount of coverage; after nine days, I cannot find necessary consensus for deletion, nor evident consensus to keep. I believe the suggestions to merge albums into the group's article should continue to be discussed and will no doubt help improve and confirm the subject's apparent notability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Sex Party[edit]

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

Nominating because this seems to be a non-notable internet based musical group Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've noticed a major possible conflict of interest. Brian Wecht is a member of Ninja Sex Party. The article was created by on User:Bwecht. It's possible that these are one and the same person based on the similarity of names. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am intrigued by the concept, the sources simply aren't there to support an article. I found nothing but trivial fluff at Huffington Post and CraveOnline, neither of which is substantial enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2014
Keep. This group has been around for years and has released three albums. It seems unduly snobbish to single them out this way. Blitterbug 20:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep This band is notable in many ways. First off, the are part of (Starbomb (album)) which according to the article "The album has managed to hit #12 overall album on iTunes, #1 on iTunes comedy along with #1 rap album and overall album at the time of its release." and was listed on the Billboard charts. Furthermore, if we delete this, we must also delete many other "internet stars" such as (Egoraptor) or Game Grumps), which neither are up for deletion. TheMesquito (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also I have in fact been looking at those very pages and may nominate them for deletion in the future. The proper response to WP:OTHERSTUFF is to in fact question the notability of all those pages, rather than to let all of them exist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see why Game Grumps might be nominated for deletion, but it's absurd to nominate Egoraptor. He's a huge name in the world of internet celebrities, up there with PewDiePie and The Yogscast. Hirohiigo (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really looked at his page too much. It might have enough, or could be merged into list of Youtube celebs or something. This is for a later date however. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ninja Sex Party is a band that has cracked the Top 100 Comedy Albums list on iTunes for both "NSFW" and "Strawberries and Cream". At the time of this writing (March 15th, 2014), the albums are ranked on the number 55 and 56 spots, respectively (1). The band goes on tour and is referenced in WFNX "The Phoenix" Radio's website in Boston, Massachusetts (2)(3). Ninja Sex Party has also worked with popular online animator Arin 'Egoraptor' Hanson, Ross 'RubberRoss' O'Donovan, Chris 'Oneyng' O'Neil, and other notable online animators. Such collaborations occurred in "Dinosaur Laser Fight", and "Unicorn Wizard" which, at the time of this entry, each accumulated over 2 million and 1 million video views, respectively.(4) References below for information above. ADaviii (March 15, 2014 10:05 PM EST). — ADaviii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

New source was added containing a tweet from the time in which their album "Strawberries and Cream" hit #2 on iTunes in the Comedy category.(5)

New source was added which contains a photo of Ninja Sex Party's"Strawberries and Cream" reaching number 9 on the Billboard comedy charts. (6)

New source added which contains the direct, official Billboard.com archived week of May 4th, 2013 Comedy charts which lists Ninja Sex Party's "Strawberries and Cream" as Number 9 (7) --ADaviii (11:55 PM EST, March 16, 2014)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Connection with Egoraptor or Game Grumps is irrelevant since notability is not inherited. Blogs are also not relevant. I don't know if Popvortex counts as a WP:RS, so I don't think it can be used as a reference to chart performance. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and covered by reliable media. OccultZone (Talk) 02:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be established with reliable sources. See WP:GNG. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They were both part of Starbomb, who's album was the number one comedy album on iTunes for a while, as well as number one rap album. Not sure why this is being considered for deletion when you have separate pages for three cast members of "Geordie Shore" going untouched. (And unread.) 81.97.185.38 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2014 — 81.97.185.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Despite what a few others have suggested in this discussion, this act definitely does not meet the general guide for notability. The only significant coverage displayed so far in a reliable source was the puff piece on Huffington Post. The Kotaku article used as a reference is more about Game Grumps than this group, and only mentions this band briefly. As to meeting WP:BAND, the closest this group comes to meeting the criteria is the second criterion, I'm not sure that reaching #9 on a weekly chart is sufficient. Other than that this seems to be a total miss. The individuals involved in this band are involved with a couple of other acts that may be notable, but notability isn't inherited, and this band at best warrants a mention in one of the other articles (for Game Grumps or Egoraptor perhaps). -- Atama頭 15:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am a fan of this band, I have to look at this objectively and I do not see anything that warrants an article on the band for the time being. Perhaps this page can be merged with the Starbomb article. CoverMyIP (talk) 19:27, 17 March 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, snow close. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW, as the consensus here from the non-WP:SPA accounts is to delete. No notability has been established that would satisfy our notability guidelines. I have also salted the article accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warx2[edit]

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

The article has been continuously recreated after being deleted via various speedy deletion criteria. In its current form, I don't see that the article meets any speedy deletion criteria, but it still should not merit inclusion. All links used in the article (added without context) are to unreliable sources, and the only "coverage" I can find online is a relentless attempt to promote the film via press releases and promotional videos. Falls very short of being notable, and I believe it's only on Wikipedia to increase visibility of the film. -- Atama頭 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 20:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, fails WP:MOVIE... JMHamo (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability based on reliable sources that are independent. Also, article is not written in neutral point of view but rather supporting the views of the film-makers. If both issues can be addressed, might be worth keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This film warx2 deserves to remain on Wikipedia with its own page article because 1. its features notable person Bishop Thomas Muthee. 2. it includes President Obama. 3. U.S military suicides also included 4. terrorism is also part of this film. 5. more than 3 articles about this film have been provided. guputa1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guputa1111 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Guputa1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Not because it it isn't notable, simply because it's too soon. Hasn't been released yet and hasn't been reviewed. --Auric talk 22:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under wp:CRYSTAL. The list of reasons to include it above are meaningless. Wait til it's out. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE WARX2 In fairness this article warx2 needs its own Wikipedia page now, its notable enough and it is one of a kind film. lets put religious and political biases aside and lets be professionals ! there are a lot of film articles that are not as notable as warx2 but have their own Wikipedia pages. notability is not an issue with warx2. -Texasebong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasebong (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works here. Please read WP:NF to see what the requirements are for retention. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. Their own press release promised a Fall 2013 theatrical release, and it did not happen. If this is ever released, and if it gets the coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NF, an undeletion or recreation might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comments I've removed some duplicated text. Note that Texasebong and Kabibiharris are new accounts with their only contributions being to this discussion, presumably sock or meat. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE ;If you are worried about this film for religious or political reasons ; don't worry I think they (warx2) will want to create awareness not turn off 50+ percent plus of people for being one sided politically or religiously. They will want everybody included. NO ENOUGH REASONS FOR DELETION OF WARX2. -Kabibiharris

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of World Affairs[edit]

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

This is a personal essay. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft Delete~~ Amazing how hard it is to find articles on a 90 year old organisation! I think this could be saved by someone who knows the field? Neonchameleon (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I guessed it would be notable which I linked the ARS. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this topic is good enough for Encyclopedia Britannica is it good enough for Wikipedia. The content though is a problem written in the first person like From the reading I have completed on the IWA, it became very clear that.. Who is "I"? Probably copied from somewhere else in a different context. There is sourcing: "Institute of World Affairs" site:.gov and "Institute of World Affairs" site:.edu Looks like the topic passes WP:NGO. AfD is topic-level not content-level. -- GreenC 03:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable organization, and if a major print encyclopedia has an article on it, I agree Wikipedia should. I did some editing [9] and got rid of things like "and as funny as it is –as I write this paper for a college class". The article's creator wrote about himself and how he felt about things, instead of keeping it strictly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some substantial rewriting to eliminate the personal essay portion. WP as a matter of principle has always from the first included everything with an article in major general encyclopedias. Inclusion in such works is a secure standard of notability: the established experts at traditional encyclopedic notability have judged them notable, and the articles in them are reliable tertiary sources. We include a lot more also, of course, but their coverage is the starting point for ours. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award winners and nominees from Commonwealth countries[edit]

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

This page duplicates material from various other lists, and has to be updated every time one of them changes. It serves no useful purpose in its own right. The things that bring the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations together are not relevant to the film industry in general or to the Academy in particular. There is unanimous agreement at the article's talk page that the article should be deleted. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how patently ridiculous. Why not List of Nobel Peace Prize winners from countries with commercially viable apple industries? The two things are not in any way related. Nationality in general, maybe, as with List of Australian Academy Award winners and nominees but the historical political status of the country from which a nominee/winner hails is just completely unrelated to their being nominated or winning. Is there any suggestion that any nominee's country's Commonwealth-ness has contributed to their subsequent Academy Award win? Stalwart111 06:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Commonwealth doesn't have a unified film industry and is seldom considered as a single entity when it comes to discussing film (would people lump Bollywood, Nigerian, and Australian cinema together? Unlikely.) In theory it could be replaced by a list of links to List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees, List of Australian Academy Award winners and nominees, and similar articles, but I'm not sure that's justified, for the same reason. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per all of the above. Two unrelated criteria collide, leaving a train wreck. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Al-Balushi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has been called up to the Omani national team, but since he has not played, this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in fully professional league nor senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of significant, reliable coverage of any other achievements to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parthajeet Sarma[edit]

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

BLP whose only sources are profile sites (LinkedIn, Goodreads, Changemakers) and thus woefully undersourced. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources cited are all primary and/or questionable and thus, unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serious tone issues, lack of available sources to establish notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 17 March 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 both. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutassim Al-Shibli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Omani top flight. As this league is not confirmed as fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article or the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in fully professional league nor senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of significant, reliable coverage of any other achievements to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Âşık Derviş Vahabzade[edit]

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

I'm sure Vahabzade was a great musician, but the sources I can find are all MP3 websites. No book coverage that I can see whatsoever, as either 'Derviş Vahabzade' or 'Âşık Derviş Vahabzade' Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC and because, without sources, this is completely unverifiable. Additionally, most of this short article is about subjects other than this musician, so it's not clear what there is to say about him specifically. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rivkin[edit]

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

No dedicated coverage of Rivkin can be found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if his work was regarded as so important there would be more GS cites. Fail WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If his work was as important as claimed, there would be more notice of him in quality third-party independent sources. I can't find anything else about him other than what shows here, none of which is particularly notable. This article was previously deleted in 2009 and rose from the dead at the hand of an editor listed as a member of the en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MusicLover650. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I son't see anything that points to any notability. The list of memberships is kind of a giveaway that this is an overblown article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entire source list is ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton[edit]

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

Hereditary Duke who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. WP is not a family tree, and I see no other grounds for notability beyond his inherited title. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination seems to rely on the notion that only Dukes who sit in the House of Lords are notable. (As it happens, there is only one such Duke, and he is on a leave of absence. None of the Royal Dukes now has a seat in the Lords.) But even a Duke has only to meet the general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The point of WP:N is not that subjects of our articles need to deserve an article, but that information about them should be verifiable. Reliable sources are available for this man, however deserving or underserving some might think him. Moonraker (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Moonraker's rationale.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jimbo, and due to his independent notability as a concert promoter. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Concert promoter activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for sake of complete set of entries on hereditary peers holding notable titles. I also like moonraker's rationale. Yes, the new Duke is not particularly newsworthy at present, but we have had entries on most if not all of the dukes, including those short-lived and those with particularly bland private and public lives. As a interested person who writes up biographies of obscure historical figures here and elsewhere (purely for fun), I refer people to Wikipedia for a general summary. Wikibiohistory2 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 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 Page already Speedy-deleted

Non-Admin Closure Neonchameleon (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EpicRealms[edit]

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

I'm concerned that this does not meet the notability criteria for web content - there is no evidence that it has 3rd party notice or review from any independent sources, nor does the article suggest any unique content that would make the subject notable. There do not appear to be any awards earned, and the forum has only 12 members. I also am concerned that it contains nothing that would warrant inclusion on an existing article per WP:FAILN. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been CSD'd. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film[edit]

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

This is a local Boston film club whose only requirement is to pay for membership. It was written up at least once in the local Boston newspaper, but most of its 30,000 Google hits are from Wikipedia itself and Wikipedia mirror sites, since this club is an awards mill with 35 Wikipedia articles devoted to its "awards." The page attracts fewer than a dozen edits a year.

It is a detriment to Wikipedia in that these insignificant fan-club awards clutter up a plethora of movie articles and lists, creating WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE issues. And according to WP:CSC, if an entity has an article then evidently we're required to include them in standalone-list articles. (The guideline doesn't address awards lists within movie/actor/filmmaker articles.)

Over the last few days, User:Scolford, one of the group's founders — who named the award after two cats, which indicates how serious these awards are — has been WP:COI advocating for the club at Talk:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film. He is not an unbiased or disinterested party, and having a Wikipedia page obviously helps give the club credibility and helps in attracting paying members. He can't talk about the issue objectively and should not be part of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not clear from the nomination statement what policy or guideline(s) this article fails. We don't tend to rely on Google hits, or edit counts to define notability. Its (undesired) inclusion in lists is of no relevance to this AFD. Corollary question, are all 35 award pages also included in this AFD? They don't appear to be tagged for nomination which would be odd if the organisation awarding them is being considered for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a contentious history with me, so I ask that his comments be taken in that perspective. Clearly the issue is notability: I say I found one newspaper article about the group itself and that most of its hits are mirror sites; as well, I refer to the fan club as "insignificant." But in order to address his concern let me state the actual word: I believe the policy it fails is notability.

If this article is deleted, then it would follow that its 35 awards pages would also be deleted. That would seem to go without saying, but, again in order to address this editor's concerns: If this page is deleted, there would be no reason for its 35 related pages to stay. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Google hits. I'm a little confused. Wikipedia:Search engine test, a how-to guide detailing a Wikipedia practice or policy, states, "A search engine tests ... Usage – Identify a term's notability." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious by way of you being blocked for launching no less than six personal attacks on me in 24 hours? Yes, that's true. But I simply made a straightforward comment, it's commonplace here to say something like "fails WP:GNG" so the article can be judged against it, rather than simply bloat the nomination with issues that are of no real concern to the notability of this society. And the other 35 pages should be co-nominated, any deletion of the society article will not confer speedy deletion rights to the other articles, they'll need to be nominated after this (should it be deleted). Kill two birds with one stone. Or rather, 36 birds. Re: Google hits, yes, confused would be right, that very same page says "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." Always worth getting past the headlines of a Wikipedia "how-to" page! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage in third-party sources such as Lonely Planet guide and Boston Globe. And if the actors themselves show up to pick up the awards, that makes them generally more notable than the Razzies! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (blinks HARD) I really hope this is a joke -- and AfD is no place for jokes -- because otherwise I would be startled out of my socks at the implication that an admin with over a hundred thousand edits has as little a handle on the definition of Wikipedia notability standards as that. Awards do not become notable because actors show up for them or not. They become notable because the outside world notices. I found TWO Google News hits for this organization. Just checking, there are over twenty-five thousand news items for the Razzies. Ravenswing 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, suggesting the Razzies was less notable was a joke. As I said, the organisation has been covered in both Lonely Planet and The Boston Globe. How many Google hits do you need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Anyway, we've both offered our opinions, let's move on and do something positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have said that this organization has been covered in Lonely Planet, without supplying any link or citation. Upon attempting to find one, it seems the "coverage" to which you refer is a link on Lonely Planet's website [10]. That link, one of over eleven hundred for "All things to do in Boston," comes with the sole statement "Sorry, we currently have no review for this entertainment-nightlife" and a link to the subject's website. Period. Do you have a genuine citation to proffer? Ravenswing 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Proffered" (sic). Cheers, moving on to other things now, as you seem so angry and hostile, I don't want you getting more upset The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        And a three-sentence cite certainly (and explicitly, in the GNG's footnotes) doesn't meet the GNG's requirements that a source discuss a subject "in significant detail." Ravenswing 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, after all, it's the only film society noted in the whole book, but it's bound to be pointless in your mind . I've already moved on to better things now, as I said before. [REPEAT:] How many Google hits do you need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Stop editing my comments by the way. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That being the third time you've said that, when might we be able to take you at your word? As far as editing comments goes, that's quite permissible when redacting personal attacks from discussion pages, something else of which a veteran admin should not be ignorant. Since your Google crack appeared to be a taunt, I didn't feel the need to respond to it, but since you insist, the answer is simple: enough to establish multiple reliable, independent, published, third-party sources which both satisfy the GNG and any applicable subordinate notability criteria. A veteran admin shouldn't need to be instructed in those either. Ravenswing 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I answered your questions, you continued to variously edit my own posts, for which you should be blocked, and yet you continue, with bad faith, to accuse me of this, that and the other. And you don't answer the questions posed to you, such hypocrisy. Well played, you must be truly proud of yourself and your edits, but no doubt, you'll remove parts of this post you disagree with, subversively, just as you have done twice already. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to stay out of this AfD discussion. I certainly understand my conflict-of-interest in the decision. I will, however, continue to correct factual errors, such as the fact that I am not one of the founders of CSIF. I have only been a member of the organization since the 7th annual awards. Scolford (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated, I'm not frequently involved in these discussions and yes, I acknowledge my own WP:COI. However, I do want to highlight Tenebrae's frequent assertion of uncited, entirely uncorroborated, incorrect information. Please, when making any informed opinion, please fact-check what he asserts. I am only here because of his trolling of the Talk page of a page relating to a society I participate in. Scolford (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here to uncivily insult me as "troll" for bringing up commonplace, legitimate issues is hardly "staying out of this AfD discussion." Whether [User:Scolford|Scolford]] is a founder or not is an irrelevant smokesecreen. He's part of the organization and it's in his self-interest to have his club's page on Wikipedia to help confer it significance and attract paying members. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. An advanced Google News search turns up only TWO hits for this obscure local organization: a press release from its own website, and a Globe article. Strictly local coverage of its events fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and the GNG requires that there be multiple sources -- if there were fifty Boston Globe articles, and still nothing else from a reliable, independent, third-party, published source that wasn't the Globe, that would not pass the GNG. WP:CLUB requires that, as a non-commercial organization, the organization not only pass the GNG, but that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." This organization would fail that test as well, unless it could prove that it has "achieved national or even international notice" or "there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." Add in that this blizzard of subordinate articles is just plain absurd -- and if no one else files a bundled AfD on them, I'll be happy to do so myself -- and there you go. Ravenswing 09:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:AUD discounts completely local coverage. Does Boston.com count as a regional source? I'm not seeing any coverage in trade press like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, which is generally a bad sign for notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not as a separate one, at least: boston.com is the Globe's public access site (as opposed to bostonglobe.com, which is their paywalled site). Ravenswing 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's hard to make a good call here. Here's what I've found. The Phoenix (a Boston weekly alternative paper) has numerous small articles like this; you can Google site:thephoenix.com Chlotrudis for the rest. (That one is written by Peter Keough, whose background is here.) Also, in Google Books, there are a few mentions sprinkled throughout (when you search for Chlotrudis -intitle:Chlotrudis), such as a Christian Bale book, a Guy Madden book, a Michael Haneke book, and a few filmmaking books too. It's too bad that we don't have a broader article that talks about film in Boston, that could encompass festivals and organizations like this one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Scarlett Johnasson too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no source through Google saying she attended any Chlortrudis ceremony: Scarlett Johansson +"chlotrudis". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody claimed she had. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are just some Google Books results that identify books about actors. When they list awards, they list Chlotrudis among them. It's not significant coverage, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being intentionally disruptive, Rambling Man? What is the point of mentioning Johansson here? Ravenswing 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith here and focus on the content. Rambling Man was just pointing out another book about an actor that mentioned Chlotrudis. It is just to show where the award has been mentioned in reliable sources, to get an idea of the universe in which Chlotrudis is mentioned. It's still not significant coverage, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor assumes no good faith and continually adjusts other editors' comments without notification. This will eventually result in an indefinite block for disruptive behaviour, but not one that I'll dish out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed Ravenswing about WP:TPO in regard to editing your earlier comment. That said, let's please all focus on the content. It is not conducive to do otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, I've moved on to more constructive matters, I wish you all luck here, tip of the iceberg etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing. There doesn't appear to be "significant coverage" as defined by WP:GNG, nor does the organization appear to reach the scope of WP:CLUB.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ravenswing is correct, I can find no evidence that there is any "significant coverage" in any kind of detail to show that this subject is notable. Just being put in a list of awards does not make something notable. If it did everything about celebrities these days would be notable, like what they had for lunch. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:CLUB. While this by The Boston Globe is significant coverage, I am not finding "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". While Lonely Planet mentions the organization, it is still just a mention. The book results are also just mentions. This at The Phoenix and by Peter Keough (a critic and member of the Boston Society of Film Critics and National Society of Film Critics) would be helpful if it was not just an alternative weekly newspaper from the local area. The trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter usually do a good job mentioning these organizations in some form, but between these two, this organization is only mentioned briefly here. I'm willing to reconsider if additional significant coverage can be indicated, but I am not finding enough to warrant an encyclopedic article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have pointed out, there really isn't any significant coverage outside of local sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficiently sourced article via WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already had sources and here's another. Andrew (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Deputy Liutenantship is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficiently sourced article via WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ColonelHenry and per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kline[edit]

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

Subject was not a notable individual when he ran for state office in 2006, and he hasn't done anything to gain notability since. I seriously considered speedy-deleting this article under CSD A7, but since the article has been around for eight or nine years, I figured there should be some open discussion on it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree. PorcineEnforcer (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candiates for state legislatures are not notable, if he had won it would be a different story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 12 March 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) Breadblade (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan[edit]

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

Nothing in the career of this heir to the Marquess of Ailesbury to suggest notability in his own right. Even if he assumes the hereditary title eventually this still carries with it no constitutional significance. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Cindy(talk) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how. Secretary and Member of regional Conservative Associations means nothing. Other than that has been Hereditary Warden of a forest, a witness to alleged police brutality, and has been most recently listed as a lorry driver and benefits claimant. Colourful, but none of this strikes me as independently noteworthy.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale seems to imply that we have applicable subject-specific or topical notability guidelines, i.e., WP:Notability (lorry driver) or WP:Notability (benefits claimant), criteria of which the subject fails to meet. However, we do have "general notability guidelines", which allow for establishing notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would also say that a quick online search reveals the existence of additional sources. Cindy(talk) 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cindy's rationale. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question This man [11] made the news headlines 7 years ago for making a gesture behind the back of David Cameron. There are probably at least 50 independent sources covering the story and guy in question such as [12] and [13]. There is currently no article on this guy, but the feedback I am getting suggests that he too might meet WP:GNG. The clincher for many it seems, would be if he was also a courtesy earl. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which shows why this type of reasoning is not generally well thought of. Whether we should or should not have an entry about some completely unrelated subject with very distinct differences from this case is interesting, but not relevant for the question of whether we should have this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jimbo, and as I've written at another AfD, earls are pretty high up in the aristocracy. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Local politician and maybe someone who did a certain...gesture: not relevant at all, also "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Vituzzu:Can you please point out how this article "fails WP:BLP"? Violations would need to be quite egregious for WP:BLP to be a valid deletion rationale. I'm not even seeing any minor violations. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I read this as a case of a man with an estate that is in grave financial trouble and in dispute with the estate trustees over their attempts to recuse something for the family. That may bne notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cindy, et al. Clearly meets WP:GNG. "Fails WP:BLP" is mildly amusing; while violations should always be corrected/removed immediately, deleting the entire article is only done in the most extreme circumstances. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:08, 20 March 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 merge to Nigel Paulet, 18th Marquess of Winchester. Rounding to merge slakr^\ talk / 05:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire[edit]

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

Courtesy Earl and heir to the Maquess of Winchester, a hereditary title of no constitutional significance. Unlikely to meet notability guidelines as a musician as I am unable to find any coverage of this on google. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nigel Paulet, 18th Marquess of Winchester, as the only citation offered here refers to both. A separate page may be needed in due course but probably isn't needed now. NB, Flaming Ferrari, your "Maquess of Winchester" sounds like the name of an English peer confused by the French Resistance. In my view, you are wrong about "a hereditary title of no constitutional significance", see Marquess of Winchester. Moonraker (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Amateur musician activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with his father -- still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cunliffe-Lister, 3rd Earl of Swinton[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I note that it is his wife rathe than he who was appointed Lord Lieutenant. She certainly ought to be notable (and have an article). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voidmstr's law[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirement for notability. Corey Glynn (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence this term has been used enough to justify an article.TheLongTone (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources for notability. Nothing but a few casual references. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An eponymous law that has not yet become notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two references are provided in the article. Wired is a suitable reference. Wired Minds mentions the "law" only in passing—which does not support notability. The link provided from that page gives a "server not found" error. I could not find any other suitable sources to support notability. With only one appropriately supportive source available, the article's topic does not meet the requirement for notability. (Incidentally, WP:MADEUP does not apply here. The fact that the nominator has duplicated a link to the same guideline is further circumstantial evidence that he does not understand that guideline.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that both sources are by the same author "toxic". My motive behind this nomination is to receive your input, not to demonstrate a knowledge of WP:MADEUP or any other policies. There's no need to sleuth for evidence of that which is so obvious. Corey Glynn (talk) 05:01, 13 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conroy Ryder, 8th Earl of Harrowby[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I suspect that he spend his time managing his estate, which may be a substantial one. If not keeping, Merge to Earl of Harrowby. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 18 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Lowther, 8th Earl of Lonsdale[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The controversy over the disposal of the Lowther estates (see article) has generated what I would consider to be "significant coverage". Choess (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Choess. Likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Even if substantially diminished by the effects of death duties, the Lowther estate, is an important one, and the subject is presumably their amin owner. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Pery, 7th Earl of Limerick[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl in the Peerage of Ireland Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Moonraker's arguments. Finnegas (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability while being a banker is pretty "ordinary". For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:57, 14 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:N, a significant figure in the West of England, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Cindy(talk) 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From an objective point of view I read this article as: Spent Two years as product designer, inherited the family title and now runs the family estate. Is a motoring enthusiast but has done nothing in the world of motoring to mark him out as individually notable.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. What is your understanding of the general notability guidelines? And how does your understanding differentiate from your comment here? Cindy(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about meets the general notability guideline, which is about requiring reliable sources to be available. Judging from the large number of deletions of pages on Earls and Marquesses you have proposed, Flaming Ferrari, you seem to have the view that peers not in the House of Lords are inherently non-notable, but even an Earl has only to meet the GNG. Moonraker (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Moonraker's rationale. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability, as Flaming Ferrari underlines there are no other notable activities. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being the owner of Wilton House, one of the great country houses of England and of an estate of 14000 acres is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonraker. This earl is fairly high up in the peerage, and a very old title at that, one of the oldest if my information is correct. The fact that he owns and maintains a 'great house' adds to his notability. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 18 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. A major landowner (and godson of HM the Queen) who owns a tremendous collection of Egyptian antiquities and the house used as the location of Downton Abbey. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. And a quick look at Google reveals the existence of numerous other sources. Cindy(talk) 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Living in a place used to make a movie and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being owner of Highclere, a great mansion, and presumably an estate to go with it is sufficient for me to keep it. The impact of the filming of the TV series on the family has also been covered on TV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonraker and Peterkingiron. Also, he was the star of a documentary on PBS about the making of Downton Abbey. IMHO, earls are high up enough on the peerage as to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Bathurst, 9th Earl Bathurst[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prominent and plainly notable landowning peer, although page badly needs inline citations and sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being a landlord" and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think that ownership of Cirencester Park (country house) and the estate that goes with it is about sufficient to mmake him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 18 March 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 Gian Marco Centinaio. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centinaio[edit]

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

There is so little here -- two people with the same name, neither having a WP entry -- that this does not warrant an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Basically a disambiguation page without bluelinks. Cavarrone 08:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gian Marco Centinaio, except John Pack Lambert wants to create a stub about Alberto Centinaio. Cavarrone 05:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I usually prod these when there's no valid redirect target. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gian Marco Centinaio. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created a bio on the one who apparently is an Italian senator. It would help if people who understood Italian could do more work on that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 12 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stanhope, 12th Earl of Harrington[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Having once been 325th in the UK rich list and possessing a hereditary title are not sufficient grounds for notability. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, almost certainly notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being rich" and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently notable to meet WP:N; whether they sit in the House of Lords or not is not grounds for establishing notability. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- surely a man with land worth £250M is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonraker. Earls, especially of older titles, may be considered per se notable. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. He's also an in-law of HM The Queen. To keep all the links blue, we need to keep such articles. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP."Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He is clearly the owner of a large estate, though perhaps not very notable as such; and apparently rich enough not to need ot open it to the public. I am not sure that is notability, but Merge to Earl Ferrers, rather than delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonraker. This earl is fairly high up in the peerage, and a very old title at that (14th!!!). Bearian (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 18 March 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 21:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Grant, 12th Countess of Dysart[edit]

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

Non-notable Scottish Countess (post House of Lords Act 1999) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some good sources here, including her obituary in The Times, so notable per WP:N. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Moonraker's points are well made. There is considerable contextual value in being able to click through the succession of what may today be considered a relatively minor peerage. Deleting this article would just create pressure to amalgamate the content with the preceding and/or succeeding Earls of Dysart title holder articles which would be clumsy and potentially confusing. KenBailey (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that reputable independent sources confirm that the subject died in 2011, surely WP:BDP applies? KenBailey (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N; as comment above states, there is plenty of (non trivial) detail from the Times obituary that could be used to flesh this out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Rothiemurchus estate is one of the greater estates in the Scottish Highlands, so that its owner should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Smith[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. Minor actress and Playboy Playmate monthly,not even annual, 40 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicebluegown (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content has a place on Wikipedia. The separate question is whether she deserves a stand-alone article, or if this text should be merged into List of Playboy Playmates of 1973. However, that would be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. (In that regard, I lean toward keeping the separate page, because of her post-Playboy acting and TV work.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. C. Fred's analysis is on target, and the subject's mainstream film/TV would likely support an independent article even if she weren't a playmate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A second-tier role in the iconic Animal House plus her TV work satisfy WP:NACTOR. (Then there's her Universal Studios tour guide gig.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor actress in one role. The Animal House role was a minor supporting role, it is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 12 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Charteris, 13th Earl of Wemyss[edit]

Hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Unlikely to meet notability criteria as an academic. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly good reliable sources are already here, so notable per WP:N, although sources could be improved. Academic who taught Bill Clinton at Oxford. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. Member of British peerage. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Seriously, reading the page it seems undergoing an operation of trepanation is the most relevant activity. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently notable to meet WP:N. I agree with the comment about having a complete series of hereditary peer articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonraker. This earl is fairly high up in the peerage, and a very old title at that. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hope we won't have any more of these pointless nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Kraze[edit]

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

Self-published musician fails WP:BAND; original article's only claim to notability was a video with 2.4 million YouTube hits, and that was removed from the article by original poster after it was noted that that figure was orders of magnitude off of what YouTube showed. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrunoMarsViews.jpg

Views from Kidd Kraze's first song

File:BrunoMarsViews2.jpg

Views from Kidd Kraze's first song

These are both proof of the views, but due to copyright disputes YouTube was forced to disable this to the public, I have changed the write up to exclude this information and stick with out current visible views to normal viewers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceRickies (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. As the senior descendant of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, he is arguably a claimant to the throne. See Alternative successions of the English crown. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in his own right. This is an ordinary non-public person who by accident of birth has inherited a title. A listing in the Earl of Loudoun article should be sufficient. Hack (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, he is not listed on the Roll of the Peerage so is therefore not officially entitled to be referred to as the Earl.[14] Hack (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonraker. Clearly notable, as a claim on the English throne. There has been a TV program about him, and lots of press coverage. The sources need improving, but that should not be too difficult. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no opinion here, but I am pretty certain the TV program (Tony Robinson's) was actually about his late father. Frickeg (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets the criteria of WP:BASIC, and this perhaps would be more apparent if more secondary sources were added.–Kiwipat (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per JW, flor the higher nobility we should continue the series of articles. They would in general always have been notable even if not "legislators," though that was a conveneint shorthand in the past. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:31, 14 March 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) Breadblade (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury[edit]

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

Hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 and has been unsuccessful in subsequent attempted to become an elected peer. Appears to be a bit part businessman, musician, runner and philanthropist, but having read the entire article I struggle to see anything which marks this individual out as inherently notable. Also possibly self-written with similarities to Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plainly notable. Peers are not inherently non-notable because they do not have a seat in the House of Lords. Like the rest of humanity, they need only meet the test of WP:N, which is not about being a deserving human being but about the availability of reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, NB the view of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. This page is full of trivia, gossip and other not notable stuffs which cannot be included on Wikipedia. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable for his efforts to restore the family mansion, and as owner of a great estate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonraker and Peterkingiron. Earls are high up enough in the peerage as to be considerd automatically notable. His charitable work adds to his notability. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 18 March 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 merge to Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury. slakr^\ talk / 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury[edit]

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

Non-notable wife of a hereditary Earl with no consitutional function. Possibly self-written. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you "possibly" outing the creator? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth noting (again) that the content was created by Cindamuse, so she should have been alerted. While trying to clean up the article about Shaftesbury, I took out the info about his wife and made a new article out of it. The article was thus certainly not created by its subject. Cindamuse, however, has said several times that she is connected to the family. I am not sure whether or not that is relevant, though. As the article about Shaftesbury is now rather succint, I feel merging might be the best option. Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see anything encyclopedically notable there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury. Moonraker (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Moonraker--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Veterinary surgeon activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her husband, per Moonraker. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury per Moonraker, Jimbo, et al. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick's article. Disclosure: I'm not Dinah. Cindy(talk) 23:05, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 11th Earl of Shaftesbury[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources should be improved. (There is far too much on this page about the murder of the 10th Earl, which belongs elsewhere.) NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. A tragic death and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Weak Keep -- His father was certainly notable, as is his younger brother the present earl, who is taking on the enormous task of rejuvenating the family mansion. However, this man was an accountant who was briefly known by the title, for a few months from the discovery of his father's body until his own death. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Agree on notability based on being a hereditary peer, per comment quoted above from Jimbo Wales. As such, this is a historical figure.Henitsirk (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 18 March 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.

Paul Capell, 11th Earl of Essex[edit]

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 consensus to keep Elassint ^Hi 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Moonraker's arguments. Finnegas (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earl of Essex. An otherwise NN schoolmaster, who happens to have inherited the title from a distant cousin, probably without any estates to keep the title up with. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourmaline's use in reducing Harmonic Distortion[edit]

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

The writing is not technically convincing; for example the sentence "Historically these conditions are known as power loss, impedance, resonance, low power factor, resistance and most recently Harmonic Distortion." is not persuasive. What has perhaps happened "most recently" is that harmonic distortion has become a concern -- it is not like a newly discovered disease.

I have not read all the references but they are a very mixed batch of mostly generic (unrelated) description. The presence of a patent (perhaps issued, but that means nothing, other than that no previous patent application contained a similar set of sentences) should actually be a red flag requiring a check for COI.

If tourmaline has any such amazing properties these should be added to the article on it.

Imaginatorium (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmitigated rubbish. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as hoax or vandalism or unmitigated rubbish or whatever. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl in the Peerage of Ireland Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved and page badly needs inline citations. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- He may have a substantial estate, but this is not clear from the Who's Who entry. If not kept merge into Earl of Bessborough. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources we have for the page already are all about this man's troubles, but they are generally good ones and indicate to me that he is likely to be notable per WP:N. Citations still needed for other details given on the page. Please note also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Having debts" and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It sounds as if he has had a controversial career as an unsuccessful financier. I suspect that there is a fuller story to be told than the present stub. I note that he is not in Who's Who. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 18 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Charles Lyttelton, 12th Viscount Cobham[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the 1st to 11th Viscounts all have their own standalone articles; it would be a pity to delete the 12th just because of some supposed non-notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well unless notability can be objectively established the article should be deleted. Keeping it because 11 of his ancestors have articles is inherently subjective. While the article may be of genealogical interest I would argue that unless notability can be established then it is not of encyclopedic value. Who's who lists his career highlights as Chairman and Chief Exec., NCL Investments, 1985–2002; Chairman: Octopus Eclipse, 2004–; Azure Wealth, 2012–. As none of these companies have articles in their own right it would seem that they are not especially noteworthy positions.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable. Flaming Ferrari, I am mystified by your idea of the meaning of WP:N. There is nothing in that policy which requires articles on people's companies to exist in Wikipedia, the policy is essentially about the existence of reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NB also the view stated by Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability while businessman activity is pretty "ordinary". For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He is a lot more notable than his predecessor. Any notability that his brother had was probably inherited from his wives. The present lord Cobham is (or recently was) a leading member of the city firm of Smith and Williamson. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 18 March 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) Breadblade (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP, for the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. Also this page is almost tautological. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N; whether they sit in the House of Lords or not is not grounds for establishing notability. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 18 March 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Malcolm Colquhoun, 9th Baronet[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Baronet, but also very large landowner (45,000 acres in Scotland) and runs two schools in London. He is also the Chief of the Colquhoun Clan, representing the whole clan. If anything, his page needs to be expanded.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably one of the most notable baronets with an article here. Chief of a Scottish clan, significant landowner, reliable sources are available per WP:N, although they do need to be improved. Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete comments above may shows some notability but all those stuffs are not yet written near here. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary baronetage, there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N. Whether they sit in the House of Lords or not is not the criteria to establish notability. As stated by others above, a very significant landowner. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clan chief and the owner of a substanital Scottish estate. Not sure about schools conferrring notability, but they do not harm. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roche baronets. and/or Marge :P slakr^\ talk / 06:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David O'Grady Roche, 5th Baronet[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roche baronets, unless someone can add reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Moonraker (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roche baronets, "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness being mentioned in a page about the family is enoug. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary baronetage, there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marge to article on baronetcy. He seems to be a NN Chartered Accountant who happens to have a handle on his name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The growing consensus is that baronets are not that notable; we have begun to merge them into one article, unless they are clearly beyond marginal notability. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 20 March 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan[edit]

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

Hereditary Baron post House of Lords Act 1999 thus no longer possesses the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords. CV to date includes various positions held, including that of county councillor however I do not believe any of these positions confer notability. Also 6/7 references are chiefly concerned with the death of the subject’s father. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an encyclopaedia and people are coming here to read this article. As a member of the aristocracy the subject is notable. Jack1956 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to his title of Baron, this person has held many elected offices as well as corporate posts and had an interesting military career. It certainly seems to be premature to delete this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very likely to be notable per WP:N. The page already has some reliable sources, but some of its information is not cited and I have added {{cn}} tags. Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. His military career is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage, there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He seems to have had a long career in minor public offices. Who's Who says he was a wine shipper 1971-93, a business man. Previously he worked for engineering firms. If it were not for the peerage, I would say that he was clearly NN. Does the peerage make a difference? BUT Merge to Baron Raglan rather than delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 18 March 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 15:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Halsey (priest)[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be notable per WP:N, as the page already has some good reliable sources and no doubt more could be found. It is probably correct that this man is "constitutionally insignificant", but we do not make that a requirement of notability. By the way, Flaming Ferrari, it is a non sequitur to say "hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant." Sir Robert Peel (twice prime minister) is one exception which springs to mind. And of course several peers are also baronets. Moonraker (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I make this vote reluctantly, but there is a clear consensus that many baronets are NN. I see nothing in this biography to indicate that he is more than a fairly typical clergyman. Being superior of Scottish Community of the Transfiguration might have made him notable, but the article with that name appears to be an unrelated American order. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. While higher-up peers, such as dukes and earls, are likely considered notable, there is no clear consensus on baronets. Neither are all priests notable, compared to bishops and archdeacons. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 17 March 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. I know this got a minimal amount of discussion, but it's been out here for two weeks already so rather than relist, I'm just going to call this a keep. If anybody feels strongly about arguing for deletion, no prejudice against an immediate re-nomination -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th Baronet[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This man died in 1715, therefore he is somewhat historical, especially as he is listed as Irish baronet and the baronetcy having begun with James I. He served as High Sheriff, although past the point when JPs and Assizes had become more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was a high sheriff, knighted, and a baronet in Ireland when such things mattered (1715, not 1999). While the growing consensus is that baronets are not that notable, and we often have merged them into one article, this guy appears to have been easily notable, and once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 20 March 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) 01:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobolaji Akiode[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this person has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. This article is a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article originator). A cursory google search reveals this 2009 ESPN story, this profile from a non-profit, this story on her volunteer work with women in Nigeria, this interview with Fordham University's magazine, and this story from AriyaToday.com. While the article needs significant expansion, there are a significant number of independent sources covering this woman with non-trivial coverage. Beyond that, Akiode represented her country multiple times at the highest possible levels and is notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. I'd ask that the nominator reviews these sources and reconsiders his nomination.--TM 13:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a source to show she played in the 2004 Olympics. Clearly meets WP:NSPORTS.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NSPORTS. I added a source on her background and her charity. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:21, 11 March 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, and hope User:Makyen applies some of that research. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience package[edit]

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

PROD contested. Entire article is WP:OR, sources have been added but they are all primary. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not OR, it's the collection of information. It could be better sourced, from such places as Consumer Reports. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reasons. Procedural: It does not appear to fit any category in WP:DEL-REASON. The closest appears to be "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", but it is clear that there have not been "thorough attempts to find reliable sources". Thus, this article does not fall in any category of item in the deletion policy.

It actually appears that the primary issue with the article is that there has been little attempt to find reliable sources. A Google search for "Convenience package" returns 354,000 hits. Most of the hits on the first page of 100 appear to support the information in the article. However, most of those appear to be primary sources. I have added some references to the article of a sampling of the first several hits which directly support the specific facts in the article. As DGG mentioned, and Guy implied, I could have used better, secondary sources by filtering the Google search further. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. I should point out that primary sources are acceptable for specific facts (WP:WPNOTRS), which is how they are used in this instance. Secondary sources are, of course, still preferred. To be honest, I was in a bit of a hurry; not a good excuse, but reality. I knew that I could get references for the specific facts from primary sources, or whatever sources I would find first and did not take the extra time on that day to search for secondary sources. It would not be that difficult to obtain secondary sources for these facts, should anyone choose to do so. For instance, a Google search for '"Convenience package" review' returns about 436,000 results.

The article may, or may not, have been written based on WP:OR. It is certainly slanted towards how "Convenience package" is used in the automotive industry. This may indicate that it was written based on OR. It does not mean that the article can not be changed based on information found upon actually making "thorough attempts to find reliable sources".

My actual vote is improve. Having spent a bit more time looking for reliable sources, I find that the article's current state is really just something upon which a better article could be built to include how "Convenience packaging" is used in areas other than just the automotive industry. It is now clear to me that idea of a "Convenience package" and "Convenience packaging" have been around for a long time. Some examples: A book was written on The Effect of Convenience Packaging on the Malt Beverage Industry, 1947-1969^[1] which was sufficiently important that it was in the bibliography of the US Code of Federal Regulations.^[2] There was sufficient concern over banning "Convenience packages" in 1973 that the first issue of the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science contained an article titled "Convenience-package banning: Economic and environmental implications".^[3] In addition, a definition for "Convenience package", wrt. some drugs, has been written into Illinois law.^[4]

Deleting the article because none of us have put out the effort to find reliable sources for it, when reliable sources clearly exist, is not the right solution. — Makyen (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Weinberg, Robert S. (1972). The Effect of Convenience Packaging on the Malt Beverage Industry, 1947-1969. St. Louis: United States Brewers Association. OCLC 10555754. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
^ U.S. Government Printing Office (1976). The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 548. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
^ Gilson, Christopher C. (March 1973). "Convenience-package banning: Economic and environmental implications". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1 (1). Springer-Verlag: 75–79. doi:10.1007/BF02729318. ISSN 0092-0703. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
^ "Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB0273". ilga.gov. c. 2005. Archived from the original on March 9, 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2014.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Cameron[edit]

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

PROD contested, but no sources added. The only cited source is a WorldCat listing, which is ineligible as it's a directory. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a chapter about Cameroon in Classics Illustrated: A Cultural History, 2d ed.. His Classics Illustrated War of the Worlds has been labeled one of the "essential works" in Icons of the American Comic Book. A 50th-anniversary edition of War of the Worlds was reviewed in USA Today. Also discussed in the books Comics: Between the Panels and Cartoon America: Comic Art in the Library of Congress. -- GreenC 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom's excellent research. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lou Cameron has published quite a lot, I don't get why its wikipedia page should disapear 12:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-no (talk • contribs)

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 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally just deleted in an AfD, but an IP keeps removing the G4 template, so I'm pretty much forced to open this. The article is still not showing any signs of notability, and nothing has changed since the last AfD. It's a little less of an attack page, but it is still very dubious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article is significantly larger than the deleted version (which was only one paragraph) so G4 wouldn't apply in this case, given the lack of participation (nominator +1 including a relist) in the previous AfD, this should probably run its course. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The IP now keeps removing the AfD template, but no admin has dealt with the AIV report yet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has now. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat is a well-known religious org in Pakistan. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please provide policy-based reasons for your vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very well versed with the policies yet but i know it's notable, it's always mentioned in the news, if you need sources, i can definitely find some for you, nonetheless, i will review the policy you mentioned and provide a policy based reason as well. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please provide reliable sources that would indicate this group passes WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like there's no tomorrow. We don't have any reliable sources here to establish notability, seems like a no brainer. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A10). I am so unfamiliar with this topic. However, outside of the lead, this article is essentially a cut-paste of Tehreek-e-Khatme Nabuwwat (or the other way around). Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat was initially created in 2006, and Tehreek was created in 2010 (but has been expanded and sourced, albeit very poorly). Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat should be speedy deleted in accordance with the A10 criteria, without leaving a redirect (since Tehreek doesn't mention Pasban). An alternate choice would be to merge the lead of Pasban to Tehreek, then salt Pasban and redirect... but we don't have the sources to support even the two sentence lead. Other than that, hoping someone a bit more familiar with the subject can take a look at Tehreek. Cindy(talk) 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I am withdrawing this nomination for now, to allow a chance for evidence of notability to be provided. I am doing this because of doubts about the reliability of some of the information which led me to make this nomination. I may re-nominate at some time in the future if it seems that the subject is likely to be un-notable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobina sadat atashi[edit]

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

There does not seem to be any evidence of notability. The only source cited does not go any significant way towards establishing notability, to judge by this Google translation. (Note: a PROD was removed without any explanation. The PROD gave its concern as " Notability: The article has been removed several times due to lack of notability in Persian Wikipedia. The user insists on recreating it by taking credit from her own-made articles in English and French wikis.") The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped Pianos[edit]

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

Non-charting, non-notable album. Fails all criteria for inclusion D P 10:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC via sufficient coverage in reliable sources, e.g. the Pitchfork review already cited, plus Portland Mercury, Tinymixtapes, Sputnik Music, and several other briefer pieces such as FACT, XLR8R, Exclaim!, The Quietus. --Michig (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed by Michig. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 18:18, 8 March 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. Doing a third relist seems pointless. If somebody thinks this still needs looking at and can get sufficient discussion, no prejudice against a 2nd nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships[edit]

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

This is an article about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Matty.007 detagged it as CSD:A7, so running through the motions. PROD was contested by Cavarrone, and here we are at AfD... There is still no indication of any importance or significance and seems to fail to meet GNG. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The singular cited reference is simply a list of statistics. It does not help establish notability per WP:EVENT at all. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 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, KTC (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a bigger, established series. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:52, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetBrain[edit]

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

Not notable. Every reference here is either a downright press release, or based on one. Bizjournals is not a reliable source for notbility. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator has been blocked as a sock, WP:CSD#G5 might apply. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G5 doesn't appear to qualify as the page "must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked", which isn't the case here. -- KTC (talk) 09:41, 8 March 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, KTC (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The CIO Review reference may rise above the nominator's description and actually provide some genuine 3rd party coverage. But that said, it just evidences a firm going about its business, and in the absence of finding anything better, I think the firm falls short of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that the only available sourced are based off press releases. A search in factiva didn't find anything better. SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 9 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Grosse-Ruyken[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, plain selfpromo The Banner talk 13:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG. The book Transformationen probably constitutes a reliable source: it includes work by art historians Hans Wichmann[15] and Friedrich Piel[16] and academic Aloys Goergen[17]. She also has coverage in New York Times[18], which is not something a run-of-the-mill German artist gets, as well as in this applied art magazine[19], newspapers[20][21] and some briefer coverage[22][23] --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And 620 standard Google hits and 0 (zero) on Google News. The Banner talk 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being...? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there is not enough evidence of her being notable. A few links, often based on press releases, is not enough. The Banner talk 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colapeninsula's analysis looks to be right on target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 4 March 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, KTC (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is purely factual. The artist has exhibitions recorded on the page in at least 5 countries and in multiple mediums, one of which she is pioneering. Seems notable and well supported.--User:Imhr — Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 15 March 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 20:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Hoi Sin[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:ARTIST. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the article text was a direct WP:COPYVIO of its sole reference and has now been deleted. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that anything she has done is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence that she meets the notability guidelines.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 16 March 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) 14:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VirKet[edit]

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

I do not see anything significant here to indicare notability .It's a relatively small company. The only award is pretty minor. The sources are mostly press releases. It would seem obvious that the contributions are by editors who are likely to have COI.

This is the sort of contents we meed to free ourselves from. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough RS upon closer inspection. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence whatsoever of coverage of this company beyond what it has generated itself through its own press releases and the placement of those releases masquerading as "articles" in other outlets. You only have to look at the contribution history of this article to see the footprint of WikiExperts and their related PR companies all over it. The edit summary on creation says it all: "Adding company that has drummed up a lot of news in the digital publishing field". Note this was one week after the company and Snipp (another start-up) were plastering this press release in its various guises all over the internet. And needless to say, one week after that Silvina Moschini decided to post two "articles" on her Intuic company blog authored by VirKet's president [24], [25]. No doubt she is now busily "drumming up" yet more news via another one of her companies Publicity Guaranteed: "Our experienced writers prepare an effective promotional article for you. Once you have approved the article, our media relations team works to get your article published in newspapers and magazines by distributing your article via syndicated news services and by pitching reporters and editors." Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian political parties in Ukraine[edit]

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

POV listing. Several of these parties are multicultural. The fact that some parties support cooperation with Russia does not make them 'Russian parties' Soman (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, but other are clearly Russians. All of the parties promote Russian culture. Besides, your opinion of them being multicultural for whatever reason does not prove that they are not Russian in their ideology. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep but rename to Russophile or Pro-Russia pol parties --Львівське (говорити) 22:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would actually be even more POVish. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I don't see any way that this article can be kept. At best, I believe that this information can be included somewhere, particularly in Russians in Ukraine (potential section heading of #Politics/Political parties), or Russophilia. But I don't see a use for having a separate article on this topic. DDima 04:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could see this article being worthy of keeping, but it would need to have much more than just one list and one reference. Orser67 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information can be salvaged but the list is inherently POVed - there is no clear criteria for the inclusion to the inclusion to it is quite loaded Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:24, 12 March 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 DELETED due to blatant promotional content and unambiguous copyright violation. Cindy(talk) 06:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warx2[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE, non notable JMHamo (talk) 00:20, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz Akmal Jandran[edit]

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

A non notable person who finds not even a mention in reliable sources and who claims some kind of world record that remains unrecognized and unverified. SMS ^Talk 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has a medium-sized digital footprint on social media, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be anything. There technically isn't even proof that the guy in the picture is the subject of the article or even that the subject is a real guy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, and none of the article's claims, even if true, are notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:41, 15 March 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.

[GoogleBooks-1398982-1] Weinberg, Robert S. (1972). The Effect of Convenience Packaging on the Malt Beverage Industry, 1947-1969. St. Louis: United States Brewers Association. OCLC 10555754. Retrieved March 10, 2014.

[GoogleBooks-5277695-2] U.S. Government Printing Office (1976). The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 548. Retrieved March 10, 2014.

[C4Wauto-2311477-3] Gilson, Christopher C. (March 1973). "Convenience-package banning: Economic and environmental implications". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1 (1). Springer-Verlag: 75–79. doi:10.1007/BF02729318. ISSN 0092-0703. Retrieved March 10, 2014.

[C4Wauto-2292001-4] "Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB0273". ilga.gov. c. 2005. Archived from the original on March 9, 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]