Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 March	10 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zdeněk Rejdák[edit]

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

The same user created the Břetislav Kafka article which was recently deleted. The main problem is that there are no reliable references for these parapsychologists. They are not notable parapsychologists which have been discussed in mainstream sources. The only references used on the article are a minority of fringe and self-published sources. As no reliable sources can be found I believe this should be deleted like the other. Goblin Face (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion. Self-published articles should be destroyed. This article is no exception. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published? You are taking the paranormal too seriously. He died in 2004. However sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Tentative keep -- I think the article fits well within wikipedia parameters if the sources can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs)
Delete, per Xxanthippe and per nom. The sources in the article are either to publications by Rejdak himself, and so are not independent, or to fringe sources that do not pass WP:RS. Does not pass WP:RS and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO and WP:PROF, especially given the WP:FRINGE topic of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Xxanthippe, sources are a deal-breaker here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur season[edit]

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

Season article for a team that does not play in a fully professional league, fails WP:NSEASONS JMHamo (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable season, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, not a club playing in a fully professional league. Also violates WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom and those after him nailed it. Not much more to say about it. Stalwart111 11:31, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Barnes[edit]

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

Non-notable character from a barely-notable show. Unsourced. Clear WP:OR D P 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nashville (2012 TV series)#Main cast I'd argue against the 'barely notable' part, but the character description in the main article is at least sourced; this isn't and I don't see much further expansion beyond what was in here. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has only just been created and the other main character on the show also has a page: Rayna Jaymes. Would it not be reasonable to wait a while and see if the article develops? Even a cursory search turns up multiple references for the character. Tiller54 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Firstly, this was nominated way too soon from its creation. Secondly, the nominator must've missed the award nominations for the character/actress—"barely notable"? Finally, a more-knowledgeable editor of Wiki who watches the show could make this what it should be. — Wylie pedia 12:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close. -Highly notable tv character.--♥^(Theparties) 10:19, 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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Mendez (Model)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, only apparent claim to fame is being the girlfriend of a college football player -- JamesMoose (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Mendez should be just as notable as half of the irrelevant other articles. Odell Beckham is a first round Pick and has been covered in major sources such as USA Today and others and has a magnitude of google hits. Their relationship has gained a lot of attention, even being sought out by celebrity sites for interviews. She's not the girlfriend, they're engaged/already possibly married, judging from the Starpulse interview. http://q.usatoday.com/2014/02/23/nfl-combine-odell-beckham-mike-evans-impress/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2014/02/22/lsu-wr-odell-beckham-jr-hoping-to-capitalize-on-speed-versatility/ http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2014/03/08/erica_mendez_and_odell_beckham_talk_sp http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/model/erica-mendez-net-worth/ https://www.google.com/#q=odell+beckham+erica+mendez

Sportstiger (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Ish dar ian 23:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Ish dar ian 23:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How does that apply? "Their" relationship is what's getting interviews. Both of them. Heck, most of the news concerns her instead of him. What is the different in notable between her and say Chantel Jeffries? Erica Mendez should have more grounds, since she's really married to someone. Sportstiger (talk) 23:28, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 03:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nichols[edit]

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

Non-notable parapsychologist, could only find one parapsychology blog that mentions him any detail. Has promoted fringe claims about ghost hunting, reports of his "theories" only on ghost hunting blogs, not mentioned in any reliable books. No critical coverage of his claims. Goblin Face (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note - the user who created this article in 2008 04anichols (talk · contribs) may have copied some of the information from a parapsychology blog, check his user page there was copyright concerns. Goblin Face (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an article on a WP:FRINGE topic, sourced to publications by Nichols himself and to fringe sources failing WP:RS. No evidence of significant coverage by mainstream reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and all the relevant notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, sources are poor. Much of the article is WP:OR, and some of it is off-topic. We usually, edit these aspects, but I don't see any additional redeeming sources after a quick search. Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of independent, reliable (and mainstream) sources that cover the subject in-depth. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nary a reliable source is in the article; they all seem to be self-published or vanity texts. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 17:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thomas (American football)[edit]

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

Somewhat highly ranked draft prospect, but fails WP:GNG at this time and probably won't pass it until he is drafted. Yankees10 22:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college offensive linemen seldom generate the coverage required to achieve WP:GNG and do not pass the guidelines in WP:NSPORTS. This case does not appear to be an exception. I cannot find any measure of notability at this time that the subject passes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. May become notable but it's WP:TOOSOON.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation when/if WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG is met. Gong show 00:57, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janeen Morris[edit]

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

No indication of subject's notability and no reliable source of BLP content. From the IMDb reference it appears the user is a staff employee in the media industry. Appears to be contributed by the article's subject. With no disrespect intended to the main contributor, I am invoking Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in retrospect this probably should have been a speedy deletion nom, but I don't see the harm in a discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 17:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whelan (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - long career but in a pretty irrelevant league and no international appearances, probably the most notable thing is his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmoore321 (talk • contribs)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Having a famous family also means nothing, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Giant Snowman 12:40, 10 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) 11:18, 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flirtatious Songs[edit]

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

It's an arbitrary list of songs that the article's author considers flirtatious; does not seem to be encyclopedic content by any definition of the word. Iago Qnsi 20:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure WP:OR. & hard to see that changing.TheLongTone (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - says who? Certainly not reliable sources. 100% original research. Stalwart111 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, pure OR, it could be a good example of "when should speedy deletion be applied?". --Vituzzu (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, this^. Bali88 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol Secret ^account 23:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can use this list to teach potential administrative candidates about original research and to get them more active on AFDs, which has been suffering from a urgent lack of contributors. Maybe mention it to the folks in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure or the WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks Secret ^account 00:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given the capitalization, I was expecting a band called Flirtatious; anyway, way too subjective to have a list of. Chris857 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT. → Call me Hahc21 01:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to say "lol delete", but I was not aware of these lists existing. Can anyone explain the difference between this, and say List of songs about bicycles? Article is obviously in horrible shape, but it might be possible to have an article similar to where I think the creator was going called List of songs about flirting. Or am I just thinking of this too much? — Status (talk · contribs) 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the difference between this and the bicycle list is that this one is way more subjective although it surprises me that there is a bicycle song list too! I mean, really...who needs a list of songs about bicycles? Bali88 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I understand list of songs about abortion, war, etc. I'm gonna vote delete as well, on the premise of what this actual list is right now. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:10, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Warren Campbell[edit]

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

Fringe physicist with no reliable references for his work, only material that cites him is paranormal books or blogs. Goblin Face (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF - Google scholar brought up two hits which, upon investigation proved to be a blog and a paranormal wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe researchers can be notable, but we need mainstream sources discussing their work in order to put it into a sufficiently neutral perspective. In this case we have no such sources and indeed no evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom, and because he seems to only be even remotely notable for speaking at the Monroe Institute Conference. Once. Which makes this a clear case of when WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED also argue against notability. As pointed out above, Campbell also fails WP:PROF quite spectacularly. Jinkinson talk to me 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His TOE fails everything. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:44, 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. However, I am going to perform this close by moving the article to the Draft namespace as suggested below. Ping Pmaster12 so that he is aware of the new location of the article: Draft:Larry Webster III. → Call me Hahc21 17:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Webster III[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing notable this guy other than that his father played in the NFL. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Athlete Yankees10 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails notability requirements -Iago Qnsi 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORTS nor any other notability measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all notability criteria for his football, the rest is WP:NOTINHERITED.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How about this instead of this discussion why move page to either Article Incubator or move to the Draft page. To avoid this next time. Pmaster12 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no objection to moving the article out of mainspace and into a user page or some other location for development, but that's not keeping the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What draft page? "Avoid this next time" please explain what you mean here.--Yankees10 17:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is instead of having this discussion about whether or not should this article or future articles should be deleted. Why not move it somewhere it can developed more over time. Just an suggestion if it makes sense to anybody hopefully. Pmaster12 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the possible outcomes of this discussion. It's the reason we are having this discussion... not the reason not to have it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can have the article at User:Pmaster12/Larry Webster III. And just move it to the mainspace if he ever becomes notable. I don't think there would be a problem with that.--Yankees10 02:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this guy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 06:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's Not Dead[edit]

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

Non-notable music group lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:MUSIC. References are brief mentions lacking in-depth coverage. reddogsix (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 21:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's Not Dead is a very notable rock band. They have all female musicians in their band, which is actually a rarity in a music industry that is dominated by male musicians. In the last 3 years they have performed over 250 shows all over Oregon, Washington. They have also performed in the the Midwest in support of their full length album "Monsters In My Head", which includes Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Many of the She's Not Dead live performances have been documented on Youtube by the band and their fans. They have had their songs played on several Portland radio stations, such as 101.9 KINK FM, 94.7 KNRK FM, Viva la Luna 101FM KUFO and 107.1 KZME.FM. They have been interviewed on many Internet radio shows, such as Nwcz Radio in Tacoma, Anarchy Radio in Portland and PO Honey Global Rock Radio in Seattle. Here is a list of some of the venues that She's Not Dead have performed in just 2013 and so far for 2014: She's Not Dead shows 2013 Jan 11th - Ballad Town Billiards (Forest Grove, OR) Jan 12th - The Crystal Saloon (Enumclaw, WA) Jan 18th - The Manette Saloon (Bremerton, WA ) Jan 19th - Prohibition Grille (Everett, WA) Jan 25th - Bar N9NE (Port Angeles, WA ) Jan 26th - JR's Hideaway (Belfair, WA) Feb 1st – New Copper Penny (Portland Oregon) Feb 8th - Malibu’s (Vancouver, WA) Feb 9th - Gonzo's Bar and Grill ( Kent WA) Feb 15th - Hot Rods (Goldendale, WA) Feb 16th - Dax's Bar & Grill (Richland, WA) Feb 22nd – The Lehrer (Portland, OR) Feb 23rd – The Lehrer (Portland, OR) March 2nd - Someday Lounge (Portland, OR) March 8th - Don’t book! March 9th - Ballad Town Billiards (Forest Grove, OR) March 15th - Rock The Dock Pub (Tacoma, WA) March 16th - Benbow Room (Seattle,WA) March 22nd - Tonic Lounge (Portland, OR) March 23rd - The Mac Club (McMinnville, OR) March 29th – The Loch’s (Tacoma,WA) March 30th - Casey's Bar and Grille (Belfair, WA) April 5th - Prohibition Grille (Everett, WA) April 6th - Bar N9NE (Port Angeles, WA ) April 13th – Slabtown (Portland, OR) April 19th - Malibu’s (Vancouver, WA) April 20th - Dax's Bar & Grill (Richland, WA) April 26th - Merlin's Bar & Grill (Lebanon, OR) April 27th - Merlin's Bar & Grill (Lebanon, OR) May 3rd - Prohibition Grille (Everett, WA) May 4th - Bar N9NE (Port Angeles, WA ) May 10th - Siren's Pub (Port Townsend, WA )take ferry May 11th - One-Eyed Jack's Roadhouse(Lynnwood, WA) May 17th – Silver Star Bar (Longview, WA) May 18th – Silver Star Bar (Longview, WA) May 24th – Rose Festival (Portland, OR)? May 25th - Hot Rods (Goldendale, WA) May 31st - The Spot Bar (Vancouver, OR) June 1st - The Spot Bar (Vancouver, OR) June 15th - The Mac Club (McMinnville, OR) June 21st - Malibu’s (Vancouver, WA) June 22nd - Ice Harbor Brewery (Kenwick,WA) June 23rd- Bobbi’s Bar, (Plummer, ID) June 25th – Shooters Sports Bar (Billings, Montana) June 28th – Silver Dollar Bar (St. Ignatius, Montana) June 29th- Hide Out Lounge, (Great Falls, MT) June 30th- Ted and Julie’s Party Palace and Cafe, (Butte, MT) July 1st - Sally O’Malley’s (Rapid City, SD) July 4th- Chesterfield, (Sioux City, Iowa) July 5th - Big’s Sports Bar (Sioux Falls, SD) July 6th- The Dalles House (St Croix Falls, WI) July 9th- Guest House, (Watertown, SD) July 12th - Showtime Bar & Grill(Burns, Oregon) July 13th - Hamleys Saloon (Pendelton, Oregon) July 20th – Peter’s Room Roseland Theatre (Portland, OR) July 26th - Scotty's Grub and Pub (Puyallup, WA) July 27th- Rockin the Park Festival, (Mt Vernon, WA) August 2nd- Tonic Lounge, (Portland, OR) August 3rd - Silver Star Bar (Longview, WA) Aug 30th - Malibu's (Vancouver, WA) Aug 31st Vantucky Tuneshine festival (Fern Prairie WA) Sept 6th - Bar N9NE (Port Angeles, WA )? Sept 7th - Brother Don's (Bremerton,WA)? Sept 14th – Roadhouse 101(Lincoln City, Oregon) Sept 20th – New Copper Penny (Portland Oregon) Sept 27th - Rock The Dock Pub (Tacoma, WA) Sept 28th - Casey's Bar and Grille (Belfair, WA)? October 4, 2013 Atwood's Tin Hat (Kennewick, WA) Oct 31st & Nov 1st & 2nd - Merlin’s Bar (Lebanon OR) Nov 9th - Silver Star Bar (Longview, WA) Nov 16th – The Upstage (Port Townsend, WA) Nov 22nd & 23rd - The Spot Bar & Grill(Vancouver, WA) December 13, 2013 - Malibu's (Vancouver, WA) January 31, 2014 - Louie G's (Tacoma, Washington) January 18, 2014 - The Gemini (Lake Oswego, OR) January 11, 2014 - The Pine Tree (Westport, WA) Jan 10th, 2014 - Highway 20 Roadhouse (Port Townsend, WA) February 21, 2014 - Spot Bar (Vancouver, WA) February 7, 2014 - Lucky Eagle Casino (Rochester, WA) February 1, 2014 - Culpeppers (Graham, WA) March 2nd, 2014 – Dante’s (Portland, OR)

Here are some links to the information that was mentioned above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdsqgJKgriU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyn9NEUtJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgaJZneh5d4

https://www.facebook.com/ShesNotDead

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/monsters-in-my-head/id649666401

http://www.shesnotdead.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS0m7u9QcIk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFlele8wank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etffgbAcz90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTVPOzHLlLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etffgbAcz90&list=UUJY6RWdBop3yf0J57l_-D9g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAkOpFLWnog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2kwcj1D1o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.191.220 (talk) 06:31, 7 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) 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply performing is not enough to show notability. It's expected that any given band will perform as often as they possibly can. Nor is releasing an album an automatic sign of notability. It's also expected that bands will release music. Neither is posting your music on facebook, YouTube, or any number of social media-esque sites. That's expected as well. What gives notability is coverage by a secondary source that we consider to be reliable. I tried looking, but other than the routine notifications of events, there really isn't much out there. I found a little coverage from PETA, but other than that there is no true in-depth coverage out there. Of the sources I left on the page, we have the PETA blog entry, a very brief 1-2 paragraph summary (which reads suspiciously like something that was written by the band) in a free local circular, and an article by the local paper. None of that is enough to show notability per WP:BAND. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming that the national tour can be verified with more than trivial 'gig listings', the band would pass WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any of that. What I could find looked like it was as you said, the trivial gig listings rather than what Wikipedia would consider to be a national tour. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hate to say it, but not there yet in terms of notability. I wouldn't be upset at a no consensus close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list of links above does not support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 22 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Ponwar[edit]

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

Seems like a similar article is here Ponwar (that article is sourced), but this article Rajput Ponwar is not. And this article seems to be confusing, possibly original research if you compare it to Ponwar. I can't seem to find reliable sources backing up the claims for Rajput Ponwar. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 21:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 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) 18:53, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Nunn[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. References are primarily from her modeling agency. Google search finds primarily similar material, self-generated material, and items of insufficient consequence. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding a single reliable source with any coverage of her whatsoever. Heck, I can't even find any unreliable sources that discuss her to any significant amount. Seems like a clear delete to me. Silver seren^C 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a smalltime actress and model, nothing notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, hi! I'm the creator of the article and I say go ahead and delete it! Contrary to your smart remarks and ignorant misinterpretation (above), Wikipedia has plenty of issues, generally observing - all of the information is tampered with, the sources are unreliable, and no one needs to be on here for validation. I've viewed about 12 articles in the past week that have had the ugly "This article is being considered for deletion" flag. Wikipedia's 'regulations/guidelines' cause for a major lack in quality to the site. You also have way to many people (with little of a social life) crawling around on here as if they are the "Wiki"-police; it's enough to drive one insane. Wikipedia has put way too much stress on my credibility and as many of you have hassled me countless times about the article, I almost feel as if I've been cyber-bullied. Stop this, now.

Regards, LIANA Nunn.

P.S. Be gone with the article, I do not wish to be associated with anything "Wikipedia." Thanks! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVivid (talk • contribs) 04:00, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Houseknecht[edit]

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

Minimal notability per WP:NACTOR: was in only two shows Operation Infrastructure and the more notable Weapon Masters, lacks any other acclaim or accomplishments. Present sources talk about the show and contain only passing references to him. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's certainly a lot of bio pages on him lying around, but those aren't real coverage. And any mention of him in news articles is offhand and usually in reference to "Oh hey, Chad Houseknecht used to rent this building", so no real coverage there either. It's actually rather weird that there's barely any coverage of him within the context of the show either. You would think he would be mentioned more often when the news wrote about the show, but apparently not. Silver seren^C 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A host of minor shows, not really notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 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 delete. WP:HAMMER → Call me Hahc21 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Raju : Rio Calling[edit]

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

Unreleased cartoon. WP:CRYSTALBALL, plus no assertion of notability. Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I could find discussing the film in anything longer than a sentence saying when it would be released was this one, which is a nice source, but it still entirely speculative and there is only the one (and copies of it elsewhere). So, for now, this does indeed seem to be a WP:CRYSTAL violation, though I would expect there to be a good amount of coverage once it comes out, most likely, but that is still months away. Silver seren^C 20:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, of course, that it actually does come out. We have all seen announced films, TV series, etc that never happened (which is of course why we have WP:CRYSTAL). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Much too soon for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of our village malcha[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced piece of soapboxing. Perhaps there's an interesting history here that deserves a WP article, but in that case WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for the reasons raised by Qwertyus. Or alternatively stub, rename to something like Malcha (New Delhi), and rebuild per WP:TNT. This article tries to be the history of a neighborhood in New Delhi, that was once a village and then taken for public use in 1911. For those, like me, who knew nothing about the issue before seeing this page: A Google search for <Malcha village "New Delhi"> turns up multiple newspaper articles about the villagers' continuing claims to compensation, including a 2007 demand that they be allowed to choose the President of India because the Rashtrapati Bhavan (the President's residence) sits on their former land. [1][2][3] We don't seem to have an existing article about this, other than a brief mention at Rashtrapati Bhavan. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, pushing a point of view, written from a non-broad view, and just basically problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The real malcha is in Israel. This is otherwise completely false (not to mention unsourced) and problematic per all the above.174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in your view, there cannot exist two places in the world that have the same (Romanized) name? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of detail here that could be worked in a decent article. A cleanup of typos is also needed. Tabletop (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start again or userify as Malcha (New Dehli). This seems to be a soapbox for a community that thinks it was unjustly deproved of its ancestral land. However, the article provides no context. It is written in the first person plural (our), but does not make clear who "we" are. No adequate sourcing (so that it appears to be WP:OR). Too many problems for an uninvolved editors easily to solve. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Roy Geffken[edit]

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

Biographical article that bypassed Articles For Creation. Possibly autobiographical: User:Jargenhunter has only made edits relevant to this individual's career. Seems to fail the notability criterion WP:ACADEMIC, in that it is easy to find publications by the article subject but not independent reliable sources about the article subject. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I've learnt from this process, but I still don't see how Wikipedia can have an article about someone when there don't seem to be independent reliable sources to base the article on. Apologies to anyone who felt their time was wasted.

Comment: One of the things you need to do first is figure out his impact, either via h-index or some other method. It seems to me that his articles are rather heavily cited, with the first page of results all being above 100 except for the last one. But I don't know the relative ratings of his field, so I can't determine if they are indeed high or not. Someone with more experience with such things would have to determine that. Silver seren^C 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nine papers with over 100 cites each and an h-index of 38, according to Google scholar. This is a high-citation subject (e.g. top citations on obsessive-compulsive disorders have cites of 4313, 1559, 1363, etc) but I think it's still good enough for WP:PROF#C1. Evidence that he's considered a leader in the field includes the fact that his book is listed as one of five resources on child OCD treatments by the International OCD Foundation: [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of citations. Would nom like to explain why he ignored this factor? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sure. I don't get the impression from Wikipedia:PROF#C1 that high citation rates are sufficient in themselves. It mentions "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications," and I don't see these. A phrase such as "extremely highly cited scholarly publications" is very vague: the article subject is not literally at an extreme, but then maybe there is an implicit criterion: that's the point of starting a discussion. There's a difficulty in writing an article about someone when there seem to be no independent sources about them rather than by them. This is my first AFD nom, so forgive me if I don't get it right first time. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people do find that WP:Prof is a policy that is difficult to understand so academic areas may not be a good place to start off with AfDs. Best wishes Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@MartinP: No worries. WP:PROF c1 is the criterion that most academics pass and it is demonstrated in a variety of ways, one of which is that the person's work is highly cited/used by others (implying the subject has had impact). This is normally taken as any of having (1) more than a few hundred citations, (2) h-index more than 10-15, (3) book(s) held by lots of institutions, (4) major discovery, etc. If a few more !votes come in as "keeps" (and I think this is highly likely), then the disposition becomes fairly certain and sometimes the nominator will then withdraw the AfD to save others' time. Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: I've taken your hint and withdrawn. Hope this isn't a stupid question, but are your criteria 1) and 2) written down in policy or guidelines anywhere? I didn't notice them in WP:PROF. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, the h-index number for notability depends entirely on the subject field. In his particular case, it's good enough for notability , though not spectacular. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the opinions of others with more knowledge of this field than myself, it seems that he does meet the impact level, more or less, to be considered notable. That's the problem with academics. In general, there would and should be a higher amount of notable people among academics on average than in other fields, but there is a disproportionately small amount of news coverage of academics in comparison to...pretty much any other kind of job, meaning we have to figure out other methods of gauging true notability. H-index is one such method, though there are many others. Silver seren^C 02:33, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Batajnica mass graves[edit]

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

This page clocks in at just 1,925 bytes. I see no evidence that it merits its own Wikipedia article when it can easily fit into a section of War crimes in the Kosovo War#Cover-up or, indeed, Batajnica—propose to either delete outright or merge with one or both of those two articles. 23 editor (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. I can't fathom how any good-faith editor would think it's a good idea to delete a stub for being a mere 2kb, only an hour after it was started. 23 editor, you know that this topic is covered by multiple reliable sources; why don't you add some sourced content instead? bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you are willing to create an article for every single mass grave from the Yugoslav Wars—the several hundred in Srebrenica, the half-dozen in Gospić, Sarajevo, etc? Go ahead. I fail to see how any one mass grave is notable in of itself and out of the context of the crime which it was meant to conceal. As things stand, this article is an attack page that can easily be merged into one or both of the above-mentioned articles. 23 editor (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "other stuff" exists or not, or will exist or not, is irrelevant to whether or not this page should or should not be kept. Accusatons of creating an "attack page" should be made carefully. And suggesting merger is not what AfD is for - that's what the article talk page is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bobrayner, and strongly caution 23 editor against nominating articles on such topics for deletion, while at the same time displaying the kind of the barnstars and user boxes currently on his user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? 23 editor (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means that while we're supposed to assume good faith, when those are combined with the lightning-fast nomination for deletion of this subject it makes AGFing why this was done...difficult. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? 23 editor (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent RS refs. Clearly notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's keeping those decent RS refs from being displayed at Batajnica or War crimes in the Kosovo War? They already clearly are . 23 editor (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is reminded that article size is not a reason for deletion, and that AfD is not for cleanup. Nominating an article, even by an experienced editor, for deletion barely an hour after creation is generally considered bad form as well; there is no deadline. As for the topic at hand, there appears to be sufficient references to establish that WP:GNG is passed; whether or not this should be a standalone article or merged is outside the remit of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Obviously notable topic covered with multiple reliable sources. I propose to nominator to withdraw their nomination and apologize to creator of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize? I have serious reason to question the integrity of this article and am being Wikihounded (why is Pigsonthewing stalking my nominations?; he's been editing for 10 years and he should know better) and you think I should apologize? No one commenting here has proven that this article needs to exist. 23 editor (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that you mention stalking. Clearly, you were just going through my contributions and looking for something to revert or delete (it's not the first time). That is stalking. bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic with significant media coverage. IJA (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-covered topic in reliable International sources such as The Guardian. I don't understand the continued discussion. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After carefully reading both this article and War crimes in the Kosovo War#Cover-up as proposed by the nominator I gave it a good thinking. I personaly dont care if an article is a stubb. For me a stubb is just a A class article in the making. What I fail to see here is there is nothing new basicly in the article itself thats not already covered by the other one in the Cover up section except of more refs. Those refs could be easily moved to the Cover up section if needed. This stub itself, knowing alot about the war times myself, I can not see what so much more there can be added into the article and by that I dont see what is the main purpose of the article. Why really waste time on two pages when basicly everything is already covered by the page where most people would go to first if they want to know more about the topic. There are several graves from the war and some more who are not known and almoust all who are already known are well covered when it comes to finding refs and notability but still make a page for each of them will not add anything more than there already is on the Cover up page. I would rather that page to be expanded with more news if it ever comes sence as I said that is the first page people will look at if interested in the subject and not all those smaller pages.Stepojevac (talk) 17:41, 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 17:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people of Gjilan[edit]

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

This is an out-of-context list made to promote a small town in Kosovo. I fail to see the importance of this article (we already have a list of important people from the town at Gnjilane, do we not?). 23 editor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly split. If the people are indeed notable, then there should be an article about each of them. There are sources for each person. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate list of assumed notable people sourced primarily to self-published and user-generated websites. Article does not meet the notability guideline for lists of people. If there are individuals here whose notability has actually been established in accordance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then provide a link in the Gnjilane article to their Wikipedia article. Cindy(talk) 04:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename into List of people from Gnjilane.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you may question the names within it, but not the article itself. --Arianit (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those names are already mentioned at Gnjilane. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has a point and is about notable people. By the way List of people from Gnjilane redirects to a list of people from the city of Gilan in Iran, and very few of the personalities subject of the article are in the Gnjilane article, so the two previous claims are untrue. --Atdheu (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite. Many of the sources in this article consist of Facebook pages, sq Wikipedia articles, and blogs. I think having a list of people from Gnjilane (using the correct spelling) is fine, as long as there are either articles for the individuals listed or reliable references confirming their notability. This current article also omits non-ethnic Albanians. --Local hero ^talk 16:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough content here for a notable stand alone article. Perhaps it could be renamed like other "List of people from X" articles? IJA (talk) 19:43, 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 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Wolf[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG, and, arguably, WP:BLP1E. All of the sources in the article are local ones from Atlanta, and all surround her arrest. None of the films she is supposed to have starred in are notable, and most of the claims in the article are not supported by reliable sources. The only non-local source I could find at all was [5], which is not really significant coverage of Melissa Wolf (it's borderline) - and with only the one wide-circulation reliable source available, none of the notability guidelines are met. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails pornbio & notability is 1E Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhists born to Brahmin families[edit]

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

Nominated by User:Matthewdeanmartin as a result of the discussion at Talk:Buddhists born to Brahmin families#Notability. I completed the nomination and agree with the assessment there. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 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, czar ♔ 21:40, 1 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:37, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enervee[edit]

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

advertisement, supported by PR sources. Accepted at afc nonetheless. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per nom, sources are PR. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:52, 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. → Call me Hahc21 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Force (Electrodynamics)[edit]

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

Suspect nonsense. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not nonsense but describes true physical phenomenon as published in the reference. Please do not make opinions if you are not Physics expert. Prof. in Theoretical Physics. --Mattedia (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt you are a professor. This is original research, pure and simple, with a citation that does not back the claim. You've spent your time on wikipedia consistently pushing incoherent pseudoscience and promotional material for one idea and one person. Second Quantization (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is neither pseudoscience or original research. The effect formula is strictly rewritten from the US peer reviewed journal Physical Review A and the main author is from one of the best US universities operating hot fusion laser laboratory. --Mattedia (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. The only cited source (Btw a malformatted reference to Phys. Rev. A) doesn't mention the topic. Finding other references is difficult since it doesn't get very clear what the article is about. — HHHIPPO 21:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crankery. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Term does not exist. Second Quantization (talk) 20:15, 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principle of good enough[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP –Be..anyone (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "made up one day" rationale for deletion is refuted by a quick GBooks search, which shows that the concept of "good enough" software design has been documented and discussed for close to two decades if not longer, see [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close - This meets WP:GNG and is not a new or "made up" concept whatsoever. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a pretty well-established concept, it's been around since at least the late 1990s Mtmoore321 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

427,000 Google results for something "made up one day"? Not bad. Not bad at all! ;) Keep, of course. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The definition in the article is not the same as that used in the references. Wired magazine, Software Craftsmanship, Fundamental Concepts for the Software Engineer, Software Creativity, and Software War Stories all imply that customers will use products that are good enough for their own purposes, regardless of the availability of more advanced products. The principle described does not imply that the evolution of technology is driven by user requirements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Aguanno[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Most of the provided sourced are related to the subject and non-reliable, including his LinkedIn page and his employer's website. Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Self promotional article about someone who is active at selling books about Scrum and Agile, but who has had no significant influence on these techniques. Contrast to the Agile Manifesto[11] and the original 17 signatories to it (Wikipedia, of course, doesn't even consider these originals as notable). Aguanno isn't even a post facto signatory to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too few cites on GS for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only accomplishments of significance listed in the article are publishing stuff (being a supporter of something isn't an accomplishment). But his publications don't seem to have had the impact needed to pass either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Failing that, what is there to say about him? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 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 merge to The Used. consensus at The Used can obviously determine what should be merged, if anything at all (i.e., either way, this will still end up as a redirect). slakr^\ talk / 06:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anger Music Group[edit]

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

Non-notable business. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Used. Not independently notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to The Used since this is currently just the group's personal label, and it has not signed any other groups since it was formed in 2011. If and when the label does sign other groups an independant article can be considered. Note that the refs are listed as having been accessed in 2011, so this is not the first go around for this article. Meters (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page as is - It is a company and an record labeled, multiple sources have been linked and multiple releases have been released via it. What record label other then small local unheard ones do not have a wikipage? the page should stay exactly as is. Gatorbury (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Gatorbury, can you please point to a single reliable, independent source that gives significant coverage to Anger Music Group as the subject of discussion, as opposed to routine, passing mention when devoting main attention to the band? Because I'm just not seeing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Cullen328, A simple google search of: " "the used" "anger music group" " provides over 100 sources containing information about the record label. I could now confirm that the band Corpus are now part of AMG label despite not having a release on it yet so it's not just The Used anymore. The page would be a bit too large to be merged with The Used page itself. I would NOT totally object to a section on The Used page containg all the information I have gathered and typed up to be merged from the AMG page to The Used page. However, I think the section would be a bit to large and important to be a footnote merged with The Used page itself and therefore should remain seperate. I'm not sure why this is receiving so much back fire and I am surprised the page did not exist yet. There are pages on this site that have 2 sentences on them and do not get deleted so why a record label could not have its own page and details such as history and background information is confusing to me. Is there anything particular that you wanted to see that I could provide you with to get us on the same mindset? Gatorbury (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Pointing out over 100 Google hits is of no use, Gatorbury, as they could be connected to the band, the label, Facebook, YouTube, blogs, amateur sites, passing mentions and all the other debris that litters the internet. This is an encyclopedia and we expect significant coverage in reliable independent sources. So just link to one or two such solid sources, and I will change my vote to "keep". Yes, we have other articles that are crappy, and I have recommended deleting hundreds of them. I have also recommended keeping hundreds when the topic was notable. We keep two sentence stubs about notable topics. But we are discussing this article here, not those other ones. And it is up to you to furnish the sources that show notability. As for "back fire', we routinely delete thousands of crappy articles about non-notable topics all the time. That's one of the ways that we protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. This is a completely routine debate here.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Cullen328 The sources that I used on the page were official sites of the bands or record labels or interviews with band members (some being video/audio). I think they are as relaible and have as much notability as wiki could want a source to have, if sources of official sites and interviews with words directly from the bands mouths is not legit enough then I really don't know what would be. I could add some more sources from legit/respected music sites to help though. Gatorbury (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply "Reliable independent sources" do not include anything from the band members or the record label. Meters (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Gatorbury An independent source is one that has no affiliation whatsoever with the band or the record label. An independent source is not one that reprints the words of the band members or press releases from the band. We are looking for completely independent sources to establish notability. So please bring one or two forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 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 Merge and redirect to Glossary of association football terms. Merge and redirect to Glossary of association football terms j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mazy run[edit]

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

No claim of notability, just an obscure sports term (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Iago Qnsi 03:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth adding to Glossary of association football terms as it was something of a commentator's cliché (although, to be fair, you don't hear it nearly as much now) although in no way does it need an article of its own. If it is added to the list then a redirect might be in order though. Keresaspa (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be totally fine with me (I created the stub). The phrase is used in a few articles I was reading, and really should be defined somewhere I think. The glossary would be a great place for that. Huw Powell (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Huw Powell: As article creator, if you agree to this term being added to Glossary of association football terms, you can blank the Mazy run article so that it qualifies for CSD G7, and then we don't have to continue with the whole AfD process BUT you will have to find a reliable source to reference it before it gets added. Let me know if you need help. JMHamo (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I copied the text of the article to the football jargon article (hopefully to be improved) and made it into a redirect. I consider this to be a closed case, and thank you all for all your help and suggestions. Huw Powell (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Glossary of association football terms#M Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Glossary of association football terms. Giant Snowman 12:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been merged and redirected by the author, but the merged content was removed because there was no source. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Glossary of association football terms. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AfD can be closed now. Redirect has been put in place already. JMHamo (talk) 03:14, 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) 03:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kid President[edit]

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

Advertisement for a made-up character created by a church college marketing department. Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for reliable sources revealed that Teddy Roosevelt was once called the "Kid President", but he was actually the president. I see lots of fluff coverage, perfect feel-good filler material for slow news days, and yes, he appeared at the White House with Barack Obama and someone in an Easter Bunny suit. But what I haven't been able to find is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. You are such a scrooge, Orangemike but you are right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - ironically, he's from my home town; if he hadn't been added to a "notable residents" list, I'd never have noticed the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

moved from talk page I think he is very inspirational and my students like to look up information on him. Wikipedia is a reliable, safe site. Please keep Kid President on here. Thanks. (10 March 2014, at 00:22) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.157.207 (talk • contribs)
Delete This article has lots of problems, including mixing whether it is about the character or the actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiro Tanaka (baseball, born 1977)[edit]

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

Not even remotely notable... Page apparently was created due to subjects similar name to the Japanese pitching star.. This guy briefly played in the rookie leagues and that was it. No coverage. Prod removed by article creator. Spanneraol (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:ATHLETE. Ironholds (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. It's strange that he should play in the US and disappear though, one wonders if he played in Korea or something at some point too. Alex (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Four minor league games does not show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although Masahiro Tanaka (baseball, born 1954) is notable. Dekimasuよ! 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASE/N....William 12:01, 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 Userfied. It seems reasonable to use it as an example article. As such I've moved it to User:Kevbotrox13/R.A.Q.. Go ahead and request deletion at your leisure. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R.A.Q.[edit]

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

Type of quiz used by some high-school teacher somewhere. It's hard to believe that this cannot be speedy deleted but clearly this topic is not notable. Pichpich (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD A11 -- article clearly appears to be about something insignificant invented by someone (a teacher) the author personally knows. -Iago Qnsi 02:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the original author of the page. I'm sorry for the trouble, I created this page as part of a project to show how easily someone can create or edit a wikipedia page. I didn't realize that it violated the terms of use for Wikipedia. I'm new to the site, but I thought that it would be helpful to show my peers how easy it was to edit the site for a random user such as myself. --Kevbotrox13 (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Is it possible to keep the page up until Monday at 1:00 EDT, then delete it? If not, I have no problem deleting it now. --Kevbotrox13 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a personal web host, so if consensus determines that it should be deleted then it will be deleted, but you could always create your own Wikia and move your article there. If you do so, it would be appreciated if you could blank your article so that it can be speedy deleted by this policy (CSD G7). -Iago Qnsi 03:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pichpich and IagoQnsi. Hello Kevbotrox13 and welcome to Wikipedia. I recommend that you copy and paste the wikicode for the article into your sandbox, which you can see on the menu at the top of your screen when signed in. You can show that, plus this discussion, to your teacher. You are correct that it is relatively easy to create or edit a Wikipedia page, as long as you do so in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If you are here to pitch in and help build this encyclopedia, then you can study a bit, and start contributing productively. But Wikipedia is not a place for goofing around or making a point. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 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 made a mistake with nominating this article. JDDJS (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-war film[edit]

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

All original research. Anti-war is not an actual genre. JDDJS (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename List of anti-war films and clean up (i.e. provide references). There are enough sources out there, e.g. The Thin Red Line described as an "anti-war film", a scholarly article titled "Anti-War War Films", Stephen Spielberg quoted as saying, "every war movie, good or bad, is an antiwar movie", anti-war film festivals[12][13][14] (albeit with obscure sponsors), etc.[15] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per Clarityfiend. Restrict the list to those films that have been described by a reliable source as being "anti-war". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to rename, as an article on a genre need not be titled as a list. Scholarly articles on the subject indicate that yes, notability is there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Hudson[edit]

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

Non-notable figure. Has engaged in some endeavors, but lacks multiple reliable sources about the subject. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page should not be subject to deletion, based on the subject meeting WP:GNG (topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), as well as WP:BIO (the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"). This is based on reliable sources cited in the profile. These include, but are not limited to:

Those on his career as a journalist and producer for the BBC, as well as its head of international channel programming:

Richard Cann, PR Week UK, 9 July 2004, 12:00AM (2004-07-09). "Profile: A passion for precision - Lucian Hudson, director of comms, The Department for Constitutional Affairs - Brand Republic News". Brandrepublic.com. Retrieved 2013-06-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
cite web|author= revolutionmagazine.com, 15 December 1999, 12:00AM |url=http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/126226/BBC-programming-head-leaves-jobseekers--web-site/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH |title=BBC programming head leaves for jobseekers' web site. – Brand Republic News |publisher= Brandrepublic.com |date=1999-12-15 |accessdate=2013-02-27

His work with the British Government, as the director of e-communications, their first webmaster general, and as a diplomat:

Louise Banbury, brandrepublic.com, 3 October 2000, 12:00AM (2000-10-03). "UK appoints first director of e-communications - Brand Republic News". Brandrepublic.com. Retrieved 2013-02-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
"USATODAY.com - Activists say World Summit goals undermined". Usatoday30.usatoday.com. 2002-08-31. Retrieved 2013-02-27.
Womack, Sarah (2001-02-20). "Government launches own website". Telegraph. Retrieved 2013-02-27.
DEBORAH BONELLO, Campaign, 13 October 2000, 12:00AM (2000-10-13). "SPOTLIGHT ON: UK Online - Govt bodies struggle to keep pace with internet revolution. Labour's UK Online venture has plenty of catching up to do, Deborah Bonello writes – Brand Republic News". Brandrepublic.com. Retrieved 2013-02-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

His communication research:

"The enabling state: collaborating for success". Mbsportal.bl.uk. 2003-11-30. Retrieved 2013-02-27.
"Emerald | Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal | Collaborating to achieve corporate social responsibility and sustainability?: Possibilities and problems". Emeraldinsight.com. 2010-10-28. doi:10.1108/20408021011089220. Retrieved 2013-06-19.

His role as the director of Open University:

"Open University hires Hudson". Prweek.com. 2011-05-04. Retrieved 2013-02-27.

His position as the chairman of the Liberal Judaism movement in the UK.

"Janner-Klausner 'wrong' over Thatcher funeral". The Jewish Chronicle. 26 April 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
"Liberals join Lord Sacks fan club". The Jewish Chronicle. 6 June 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
"It's the right decision for the community". The Jewish Chronicle. 17 December 2009. Retrieved 15 August 2013.
"Renewed call for board/JLC merger after chief executive steps down | The Jewish Chronicle". Thejc.com. 2013-10-10. Retrieved 2013-10-22.
"Mick Davis: Bibi hinders peace efforts and diaspora's attempts to defend Israel | The Jewish Chronicle". Thejc.com. 2013-11-29. Retrieved 2014-01-06.

These are all reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. --Amsterdad (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BrandRepublic appears to be a PR conglomorate. The rest of these sources are not about him, but instead about endeavors he's involved with, and do not confer notability per our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Republic is a website that publishes news on topics in PR, marketing and advertising[16], owned by commercial publisher Haymarket Media Group, and similar to other trade publications like Marketing Week, Campaign, Adweek, Marketing Magazine, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - qualifies per WP:NACADEMICS Point 6 as per Open University position, WP:ARTIST Point 3 for his role as head of BBC World's Newsdesk, and arguing against WP:GNG in this case, even if it were the only leg to stand on, is ridiculous. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of hits on Highbeam too, for example The Independent newspaper's October 1, 2000 article Ex-BBC Man Is Government Web Supremo, which could easily replace the Brand Republic on the political appointment article if need be. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that also essentially a PR hit? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an article by Clayton Hirst. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is certainly no pass of WP:Prof. The article has the oleagenous gloss of a PR exercise, its size out of proportion to the importance of its subject. Even if it passes WP:GNG it will have to be pruned or stubbified. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete (1) PRWeek is unreliable for showing notability. It publishes whatever anyone sends it. And is is not director of Open University. He's their Communications Director. That does not give notability as WP:PROF. I join others in suggesting that the article would show any notability better if rewritten from scratch, without trying to include everything remotely possible, and limiting the references to reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Passing off press releases as news sources is not constructive. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've taken the liberty of looking for more sources that prove notability as there really are a lot of quasi-reliable sources here. First Computer Weekly wrote an article on the Blair appointment (New Webmaster General Taken On); here's a short piece in an industry mag on the JustPeople job (Head Leaves Jobseekers Website); a Post Gazette article on the Defra position (Ex-BBC Hudson press chief at DCA ); a mention of his earlier BBBC career in a university press book (not much, but still) here with further reporting on that incident here here; and so forth. None of these are PR hits. Although I do think that the UK's first PM appointed webmaster is in and of itself a notable aspect as well, but I could be wrong there? I also notice that nobody has discussed whether being in charge of BBC programming is notable. Just curious. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice per WP:IAR. This article (and others created by the same editor) has all the hallmarks of paid editing. I agree completely with DGG who on this subject wrote on his talk page: "The difficulty is that there is often just enough notability that a decent article could be written. This can put us in the absurd of having a dozen people spend time on the AfD & someone spend a hour or so rewriting, so he can collect his money." --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many questionable and self-published sources; this article exemplifies the PR-driven editing which is negatively affecting the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 20:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF not satisfied; links merely establish the CV-like factoids and do not establish notability. The notability requirements are intended to avoid the encyclopedia being overrun with puffery showing every person or thing that has mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on above concerns. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep this would need to be edited down drastically, but in my view the governmetn positions (first at the UK's FCO and then as the UK's "first PM appointed webmaster" as Jeremy112233) are alone enough to indicate notability. When you add in the Marie Cure cancer center, the Open University position, and the chairmanship of the major "Liberal Judiasm" organization over several years, and the press coverage that comes with them, I think this clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. It may well be paid editing, or since the subject is himself a communications pro, it may actually be an autobio. All the press releases should go. But after looking at the sources now cites in the article and the additional ones linked in this discussion, I think this should stay. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I understand your criticism; it seems to be based heavily on the nature of some of my sources. I am really just trying to make these entries complete and of high quality, and I do apologize for taking up everyone's time on this when I missed that mark. Should I go in there now and start cutting down the page, taking everyone's recommendations into account? Amsterdad (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a paid editor, or with any other conflict of interest, most of us would say you have two choices here. One is to wait until someone else wants to write an article on the subject. The other is to write the article using the WP:AFC process, or as a subpage of your user page, and then see if others approve it. You would do best not to edit the present article, and if someone else starts one, you would do best to make suggestions on its talk page, not the article itself. The best guide on this at present is at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide -- though not policy, it is based on policy, and in general opinion its advice gives the safest guide. As some further advice when you try to rewrite, if you do decide to try according to the rules, is to realize first that it is possible that the available sources do not adequately support notability (I'd think any paid editor would know enough to protect themselves from doing uncompensated work by only working on subject of unquestionable notability), and second, that the problem is not just sourcing: it is the inclusion of extraneous material and links used to give a good impression of the importance of the subject, and the writing in such as a way as to state his accomplishments without sources to back them up--if you want to say his role in a particular position was X, you need a third party source to prove it; if you wish to say he was the first to do something, you need a third party source to show not only that he did it, but that he was the first. You also need to avoid exaggeration. In the article, you put the title of his paper in italics, as if it were a book, and you put emphasis on his award from the publisher of the journal itself, perhaps the most unreliable of possible sources. You call him the "first diplomat to...". I don;t even see evidence he is a diplomat--he was the UK delegate to a single meeting. You also need to write inn jargon-free language. I note "around the world" "ongoing learning" "implementation across all government departments" and several dozen such. A NPOV article cannot be built out of such statements.

If you are not a paid editor, I apologize for thinking you are--but you need to be careful to avoid writing like one. It's true the paid editors have done so much COI writing here that naïve beginners might think that's what we consider acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Thank you for apologizing, I will try my hardest to remove any content I added that came from bad sources and apologize myself for not reading the reliable sources policy before starting to edit here. Any further guidance is very welcome! Amsterdad (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Press secretaries to government departments arelikely to be sufficiently in the public eye to be notable, even if they are rarely named in the press, which alludes to "informed sources". His presnet role of press officer to Open University sound less prominent, but notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He's in Who's Who here: http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whoswho/U41456 - this is absolutely minimum WP:BEFORE. I don't understand why there are so many delete votes above and the only conclusion I can come to is that it is a negative reaction against WP:COI editors, which in this case is ill-advised. Vote on the notability not the behaviour of others. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Who is basically a directory. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is very much true - it is a directory of persons who their professional editorial board think are notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which means little to us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs) - quite the opposite to your assertion. It means a great deal. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not true. There are many publications using "Who's Who" in their titles. Marquis Who's Who for example, which is basically a vanity publication (even though some of their entries are well-chosen, mine for example!!) However, this Who's Who uses a professional editorial board and being included in it is indeed not trivial, as Barney says. It's not just a directory, but contains biographies written by their editors. Having said that, personally, I still think this needs to be nuked and started from scratch, rather than wading through all the fluff here. We're only volunteers, you know. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Randykitty (talk · contribs) - quality issues are important, and while recognising that quality control on Wikipedia is completely haphazard, unreliable, and often contentious, you could nuke this article to a stub without having to unnecessarily WP:AFD it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RK, we have normally not considered the British WW to give notability. If you think we should change that, we should have a general discussion.

Barney, sometimes I would stubbify, but when it represents promotional editing, the editing in question needs to be discouraged, and the only way we can do that is by deleting the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP can take a different view on notability from the British Who's Who (and Who was Who), but they do not include people that they consider NN. Accordingly, inclusion there is at least a strong indication of notablility. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I for one see that the only issue with the article is overly positive writing, definitely not notability. Can't argue with DGG on the style issues, but see them as easy enough to cull; I would do it but not until I know the twenty minutes or so are not going to be wasted via a deletion. Of course it would be better if the article originator could do it themselves, assuming we find no COI... Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wp:TNT or failing that stubbify. I believe he passes the GNG, but the article appears to be the result of paid editing and is certainly a puff-piece using wp:BOMBARD to make him look much more notable than he is. I don't think the article's salvageable. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean out the cruft throigh the normal editing process. it's not so bad as to required blowing up. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 19:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Debate South Africa[edit]

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

I question the notability of this article - the only bigger reference is to BBC for one of the topics in one of the episodes in one of the seasons. Production company (Broad Daylight Films Foundation) and filmmaker (Ben Cashdan) both are redlinks. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 14 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this page and the producer of the TV show. My name is Ben Cashdan. I am new to Wikipedia and so I would like to engage in this discussion to learn what is and isn't acceptable. Our TV show is the largest current affairs discussion programme in South Africa, with a weekly viewership of about a million people. Our debates are cited in newspapers in South Africa, and are discussed weekly on social media by a following of about 50,000 people. We are now in our 5th season. I created the page as lots of our viewers and lots of journalists constantly ask for basic info about the show and its history. I have no idea if this makes it a suitable entry in Wikipedia. However I notice that some similar TV shows on other broadcasters do have wikipedia entries. The show is certainly "notable" in South Africa - and I can certainly add references on the page to newspaper articles about the show (including critiques), and links to our broadcasters etc. I wonder if the question about "notability" has anything to do with the fact that our TV show is aired on the main news broadcaster in South Africa, not the BBC in the UK :-) !? In any case, the page was not written to be promotional material - I realise that Wikipedia is not the place to promote our TV show. It was written simply to make available basic information, and I'm sure over time other folks will edit it. I hope this helps with the evaluation of the page. And I look forward to hearing any feedback.

I have now added a paragraph about controversies on the show, including about 10 references to articles in national newspapers about the show, and some other references.

BroaddaylightSA (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough in the way of references now to establish notability. While Mr. Cashdan's candor here is welcome--given how often editors choose not to divulge their conflict of interest--WP:COI is a concern, as is the name of the account being used to edit the article. JNW (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although now we have to add the autobiography Ben Cashdan to this discussion. JNW (talk) 23:16, 24 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references now in the article show that this is a notable TV show in South Africa. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

Mail & Guardian
Mail & Guardian
Independent Online
Business Day

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 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 due to an editor ponying up some solid sources. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Virk[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a media personality who may or may not actually be the subject of enough media coverage to actually get past WP:GNG — as always with media figures, the mere fact that he is on TV is not sufficient to justify an article that doesn't actually cite proper sources. One problem that hits this particular person on a regular basis is the frequent addition of unsourced nicknames, of both the flattering and unflattering varieties ("Baller", "Captain Canada", etc.) — and while the article has been tagged for both notability and lack of referencing for several months without improvement, there's also an emerging issue with anonymous IPs removing the maintenance tags without actually performing any of the necessary maintenance. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if actual sourcing can be added — and this nomination represents no prejudice against a future version of the article that does cite proper sources — but a BLP is not entitled to keep an unsourced article just because he exists. Delete if the article is still in its current state by close. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time that all unsourced articles were deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added some citations. Is this better? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy. Consider this withdrawn, and thank you. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 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) 14:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projecis[edit]

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

Similar to what was decided at the previous AFD, I don't think that this company is notable per WP:CORP. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources since then. SmartSE (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom seems to be right - and the page itself was created by a banned sockpuppet - could someone with admin access check if they were responsible for the original page please? Neonchameleon (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked rather than banned... I checked before and the editor who created it last time doesn't appear linked to that group of socks. SmartSE (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence of actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 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.