Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 May	19 May >

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 Defer to merge discussion. per WP:IAR. No rationale for deletion (as opposed to merge, redirect, keep, etc.) was provided, no substantial argument for any hiding of content within the history (attacks, copyvio) is in evidence. Moreover, an ongoing merge discussion with greater participation and, in my estimation, a greater quantity of subject-specific participation continues. That discussion is better equipped, as a result, to determine the best way to improve the encyclopedia than this one, and as a result, I believe the encyclopedia will be improved by this close, and as a result, WP:IAR is invoked. Editors who have participated here are strongly encouraged to participate in the merge discussion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical statistics[edit]

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

This was not originally AFD'd by me, but I'm completing the entry for it since that step wasn't performed.

This article topic has exactly the same scope as statistics, as the name itself is merely a synonym for the field. Even as a PhD candidate in statistics, I'm unaware of any concept in statistics that I would call "non-mathematical" statistics, as the entire field is based upon a rigorous measure theoretic probably framework (Probability axioms - particularly in relation to sigma-additivity). Literally any merely mediocre statistics doctoral program will require their students to do coursework in measure theory because it's required to fully understand the mechanics of tail events, distribution theory via Lebesgue integrals, and the like (see measure-theoretic probability theory for more info). In terms of the non-foundational content sometimes called "applied statistics," that sub-field too uses a rigorous mathematical framework to establish veracity of its methods. E.g., the most commonly used method of standard regression analysis (the least-squares method) requires a set of minimal conditions involving the sample/estimators/model, depending on the data (e.g., the simplest being the Gauss–Markov theorem), to avoid spurious results. The same is true for other foundational/basic estimation methods like method of moments and maximum likelihood estimation.

So, in a nutshell, I have no clue what content would belong in either mathematical statistics or statistics that doesn't also belong in the other. Unless there's some non-definitional aspect of mainstream^‡ statistics which is not supported by a mathematical axiom or based upon a formal proof, then I suggest that mathematical statistics be WP:merged and deleted or just deleted.

NOTE:I'll concede this AFD if someone provides me just a SINGLE example of what I'm asserting doesn't exist.

^‡ By mainstream, I mean something I would expect at least a handful of highly-rated statistics doctoral program teach to their PhD students; since, if a concept isn't taught to (and hence, known by) statisticians, then I'd argue that it's pretty hard to call it statistics. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

If articles are of the same scope but not the same content then the proper action is merge and redirect, not delete. But that discussion is already underway at Talk:Statistics#Proposed merge with Mathematical statistics. Whatever the outcome, to merge or not, the article should not be deleted, so the outcome of that discussion will render this deletion nomination moot. Speedy close as inappropriate given the already underway discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard of "WP:merge and delete", right? I just did one yesterday at Diabetes and testosterone (follow the link for the deletion log).Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note I've removed the non-standard formatting from your initial post; bold has a particular purpose in deletion discussions and so should not be used elsewhere in comments. 'big' is even more unusual and really not needed. If you want to make your point stand out then use clear concise language, not extra HTML formatting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To my understanding, bold is simply used to emphasize a position statement after a bullet point, which was why I delineated the proposal and the comments with the discussion header. I'm assuming the relevant policy for AFD is a WP:TPG subsection or one of its links, but could you link it for me? I'm assuming you know it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italics can be used for emphasis: the relevant part of the TPG is 'Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions'. Using anything else such as big, bold and underline will tend to swamp other editors contributions, and should be avoided on talk pages. Bold especially has a particular use in deletion and other discussions, to highlight !votes and points of order. Using bold anywhere else makes it much harder to spot such !votes and other points.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case there is almost no difference between merging and deleting, because the two articles are of such uneven length. Redirecting would be perfectly fine with me. Anyway, I've contributed in the merger discussion just now and I'm repeating here that I haven't seen any good arguments for keeping two articles separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by TomStar81 (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan sheraz[edit]

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

No significant coverage in the reliable sources found to establish notability of the subject. It fails, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:30, 18 May 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 03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Houssein[edit]

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

Subject appears to a non-notable youtube user, strongly suspect article is promotional in nature. Extremely poorly sourced article depending on non-reliable primary material. Author appears to have COI with subject at the very least, might actually be an autobiography. Did try to speedy but a brand new account appeared and removed the tag, hence the need to bring this to AFD. Dolescum (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an autobiography, we are not linked to Houssein, however did request information from him. Regarding the statement 'non-notable youtube user', Houssein is currently working along side television star David Grant and performing live at VidCon, as noted on VidCon's website. As well as being a star in 3 WestEnd musicals. He is also scheduled to perform live at VidCon 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGSChannel (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have since been added, including: BBC, VidCon and The Sound Of Music UK Tour website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGSChannel (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that on 30 Decemember 2013 you attempted to create the article "PurneyGurneyStudios", which was itself subsequently speedied. This is recorded in the article under discussion as an inactive youtube account of it's subject and is clearly what the "PGS" in your username stands for. You clearly DO have some connection with the subject and to claim otherwise is risible. Dolescum (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PGS in my name is linked to PuneyGuneyStudios, as i am a follower of PuneyGuneyStudios, and also it is a software i use called "PGS Software". I don't think it is fair to make assumptions, in an attempt to link me with Houssein. http://www.pgs-soft.com/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGSChannel (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the article being promotional. In what way is the article supposed to promote Houssein, other than a website link? A lot of information has been added to the article regarding; personal life, internet career and published singles.--PGSChannel (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently trying to add more reliable sources, however we have noted that there are many other personalities on Wikipedia with little sources, and mostly sources from YouTube,--Stephenv14 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephenv14: Just because other articles may not meet Wikipedia guidelines doesn't mean that this article should be kept. We can't lower our standards for one article because another article doesn't meet them either. If you believe other articles don't meet our notability guidelines, you are free to also bring those up for discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning of this topic sources from the BBC, VidCon, GetSurrey, The Daily Mail, News.BBC, RankZoo, SocialBlade, VEVO, iTunes, TicketMaster, The Sound Of Music UK Tour, Yahoo and Mivzakon have been added, and we will continue to add more sources. --Stephenv14 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have also removed "further reading" as we agree this was not acceptable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. --Stephenv14 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability standards. Most sources are not from reliable, third-party sources, and/or only mention Houssein in passing. Two "big" sources listed above, BBC and Daily Mail, do not help at all for notability as they only mention Houssein in passing with no reference to his career. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hamster's rationale. I couldn't put it much better myself. None of the sources on the article are usable to show notability, as they're mostly primary (WP:PRIMARY) or don't mention Houssein at all. The BBC article seems to actually be about his father, Ramadan Güney. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by someone being related to a notable person (alive or dead) and as far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS goes, we do not keep articles on the basis that other YT personalities have articles. They might either pass notability guidelines in ways that this article doesn't or they just haven't been nominated for deletion yet. To put it bluntly, Houssein is not notable enough to merit an article at this point in time, regardless of how many unusable sources are added to the article. Adding tons of links doesn't give the appearance of notability and in this instance, actually looks more like WP:CITESPAM or WP:LINKSPAM in general. I mean no offense by that, I'm mostly saying this because in most instances of this it does more to harm than it does to help. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, there is a copy of this at Draft:Houssein. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SuperHamster: and @Tokyogirl79: for your opinions. If Houssein was to become more well-known, particularly in mainstream media, would we be able to recreate the page with more credible sources?--PGSChannel (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PGSChannel: Yes, of course, assuming there is enough coverage to meet our notabilty guidelines. Note, though, that if you are associated with Houssein, you would have a conflict of interest, in which case I would suggest creating the article in the draftspace and then having it reviewed for both neutrality and notability before getting it moved to the article space (which I would actually do regardless of a conflict of interest). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Ok, well thank you very much for your help.--PGSChannel (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Hamster and TokyoGirl, currently non-notable with no reservations about future articlehood should notability guidelines be met.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 20 May 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. Can be redirected at editorial discretion. Sandstein 19:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonic the Hedgehog comic book characters[edit]

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

Above all else, this article is so hopelessly unsalvageable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. WP:MOSFICT calls for a real-world perspective on fictional content. This list is 113,797 bytes long, and virtually all of it is from an "in-universe" perspective. There are also notability concerns. User:Sergecross73 noted in 2012 on the talk page that this list may fail WP:GNG. Per WP:LISTN, a list topic is notable if the elements have been discussed as a set by independent reliable sources. The article does not currently evidence this and a cursory Google search turns up only sources about the comic series as a whole--not on the characters specifically. Mz7 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be open to redirecting the page. However, if it is to be redirected, the article should be deleted first, then redirected, to prevent the content from being recreated in the future. Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or Delete - As mentioned above, I tried cleaning the article up back in 2012, but could only trim the garbage out, I couldn't find any sources to add. I tried to delete the article through a PROD, but it was challenged with an empty "sounds notable" type comment and then I just moved on to other things. Anyways, there's a serious lack of third party sources and out-of-universe content. I'd be okay with a redirect though because it could be made someday if a "retrospective" article or two were to be written someday. (It usually doesn't take a whole lot to justify a list of characters article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or Delete Given how big the Sonic franchise is, we can reasonably expect a list of characters article even if the characters w/o articles would fail the GNG. It's a reasonable thing to have. But the level of detail here for just one expanded-universe version would be far too much and would require the needed support of secondary sources to justify and I just don't see that happening. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or Delete - completely agree with nomination and User:Sergecross73. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this page is salvageable, and agree with User:Masem points on notability. Significant clean-up is required, so the option to delete the page and start again is an attractive option, but probably not preferable to simply fixing the offending content. It would likely take more time and effort to create a new article than fix-up this existing article, and risks falling into the same problems that exist currently. A lot of the problems currently in this article appear to stem from a lack of usage of the Talk Page function, for example the page length could be significantly reduced if a consensus on what characters are significant enough to be mentioned was implemented.MegaMuffinMan (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can concede to the notability - as Sergecross mentions, notability of an independent character list is not that difficult to establish. However, the problem isn't the length of this page. While cleanup is generally preferable to deletion when there is a portion of fixable content, the problem here is that the entire page falls under the category of "offending content", because each description is only an in-universe description of each character, with little regards to real world production and impact. To make this list encyclopedic and conforming to WP:MOSFICT, the entire article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Mz7 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or Delete per mostly everyone above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:31, 27 May 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 Julian Assange. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of works about Julian Assange[edit]

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

A laundry list of WikiCrimes that at no point explains how it meets WP:GNG. If anything can be salvaged it should be merged into Julian Assange. Laun chba ller 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Julian Assange. This type of material is usually included in the main article on a person. I don't see anything special here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The most notable works already appear to be covered in Assange's article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Julian Assange - no reason for a stand-alone list like this. It looks like most of those are mentioned in the primary article so it would be a selective merge but I'm sure someone competent could do that. Stalwart111 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Julian Assange per Stalwart, Kitfoxxe. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question I received a notice of the nomination for deletion of this List. it says: “The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern”, but all I see here is a reference to WP:GNG which is a general introduction and not one specific to Lists. Can you please point me to specific policies and guidelines which are of concern in this particular case? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the article fails WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is an optional requirement, in particular for something like a Bibliography. How does one apply GNG to a bibliography, other than "because the rules say" - it's not logical and is arbitrary. Most Bibliographies would fail GNG. Per WP:CFORK, we often fork content when it makes practical sense. If it makes sense here or not I don't know, but CFORK is really the guideline we should be discussing. -- GreenC 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, though I take the view that as half the content already exists in the article, there isn't enough for a stand-alone list.--Laun chba ller 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Julian Assange, though I suspect most of the content is included already. It should be noted that a significant proportion of the content isn't 'works about Julian Assange' anyway. Neither 'Organizations founded by Julian Assange', 'Legal proceedings', nor 'People closely associated with Julian Assange' are 'works' to my way of thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SNOW. A deletion would erase important links. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Obvious call. Snow. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 23 May 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Bazaar[edit]

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

Of the five references in the article, one is a deadlink and three are to the Russian Bazaar itself. Therefore, I am not seeing a case for notability here p b p 21:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above - sngle original source as main reference to article, no evidence availabile on internet as to it being noteable as per WP:NOTE seems clear cut to me on the evidence available. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. I'm having trouble finding any coverage in reliable sources, beyond the one New York Times ref in the article. I tend towards keeping articles about newspapers, as I think it's valuable for Wikipedia to provide coverage of its own sources, or potential sources, but unless independent reliable sources can be found this can't be kept. Pburka (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sympathetic to Pburka's reluctance, and have spent a fair bit of time trying to look for something, anything, that would get us the second half of WP:GNG, over and above the NYT mention. One highbeam article has a mention, but sourced to a journalist from the paper. What convinced me toward deletion was that not a single library save the Library of Congress claims to collect this newspaper, per WorldCat. I also tried the usual searches on Gweb, Gbooks, Gscholar, and Highbeam. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Series 2[edit]

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

Well the only notable thing is how poorly it did-other then that this seems like an AFD. Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest a redirect, but we have two names here and both seem to have contributed equally. There just wasn't enough coverage out there to really show that this merits an article outside of the two people who created it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah the only thing that is really notable at all is just how bad it did-but that is it. Wgolf (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find GNG-worthy coverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:34, 28 May 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 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willie McGee (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX as both an amateur and professional. There's also no significant coverage of him to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOX....William 11:48, 21 May 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 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Mathis[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.Jakejr (talk) 22:34, 21 May 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodarte[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but maybe WP:BLOWITUP). Advertising? Horribly so, and those responsible should receive 1000 lashes with a trout. But the brand itself is notable, I think, having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are some ridiculous claims in the article, like the suggestion that "x celebrity is a fan of the brand" because she happened to wear one of the company's dresses to an award ceremony once. Total rubbish. Stalwart111 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that what is listed on this page is a list or series of events/ records that make up a brand's history. If people use Wikipedia as a source and timeline for events/people/places, and this reads just like every entry I read about a film's trajectory or even the timeline of a tech company. Aside from the ridiculous quote listed above, I don't see much else that is not factual information based in events and perhaps timeline highlights for the brand itself.? user: ParisTexas1980 — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's mostly non-WP:MOS-compliant advertispam. Stalwart111 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep If the tone seems too promotional then that's addressed by ordinary editing not deletion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the brand is notable, but this article is just an advertisement. You can not keep up the rule that advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia when you do not apply WP:TNT on this article. The Banner talk 08:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is neither policy nor a guideline. It is advocacy of violence which is inappropriate here. Our actual editing policy is WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over advocate violence? It suggests that sometimes articles about notable subjects are created by editors less familiar with our manuals of style and that sometimes there would be more effort involved in fixing those articles than in starting over again. It doesn't advocate beating those editors to death with a rock. In fact in my experience, that process can be a great learning opportunity for new editors who saw a need (for a new article) but didn't quite know how to fill that gap. Stalwart111 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major brand with plenty of reliable sources. Don't think it's so bad as to merit deletion for a clean-slate rewrite -- current references etc. could be useful to future editors. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban Tool[edit]

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

Non-notable software (per GNG/CORPDEPTH). Insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources available. Almost exclusively edited by SPAs (including two different ones that removed CSD tags). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Kanban (development) (which has been up for AFD for a while, for which i voted !Keep... this new AFD is presumably related). The sources here support the importance of Kanban in the software development area. --doncram 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly oppose this merge: development practice and piece of software are distinct topics, and coverage of development practice does not benefit from description of individual tools. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close debate and merge - the suggestion to merge is a common outcome for subsidiaries, and AfD is not the proper forum any more. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: - I'm not clear on this. It sounds like you're calling the AfD invalid as a request to merge, but it's not. Nor is merge the only logical avenue (or even a desired outcome). It isn't a subsidiary of any other organization['s article] as far as I can tell, but an application to help with the kanban method, AfDed just as I would for Bob's graphic design app rather than merge into graphic design. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically Rhododendrites is right that whether a redirect is to be kept or not is still open for discussion, and is a proper subject for AFD, but I think Bearian is clear that B supports merger and redirect of this without deletion. Looking at the material in the article, including this review of Kanban software development tools (which includes review of the Kanban Tool one among others), i think it has pretty valid material worth keeping. The graphic provided in this article seems especially helpful to use at the merge target article as one example of a visual aid (visual obviousness is core concept in the manufacturing kanban analogy), and I think it would be fine to explicitly mention the "Kanban Tool" company there and some other tool-providers in the article and/or as external links. I don't think it gives undue promotion to the Kanban Tool company to leave a redirect behind; it is possible in the future that a separate article on it would be justified, and a redirect just keeps the edit history. --doncram 17:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - My concern re: Bearian is that it seems like he's making a procedural point, which, since I don't understand what basis it has is cause for pause coming from an admin (as someone likely more knowledgeable than I in certain policy nuance as well as someone who can act on said policy).
    - As far as notability, I think our standards for reliable sources and what degree of sourcing is sufficient just differ. That toolsjournal.com "review" (scare quotes because it appears to be a couple sentences of promotional copy in a list of 15 on a website of generally dubious reliability) would not, as far as I'm concerned, justify mentioning anywhere except maybe in a long list with several of these other relevant programs that are equally not notable. Merge assumes more than mentioning the name "Kanban Tool." It implies taking the content of one article and merging it into the content of another -- which would be undue. I have no doubt anybody with a little marketing savvy can get a piece of software listed at some industry software "community site" (as toolsjournal calls itself). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The current refs are a blog, an incidental mention, and the killerstartups interview which is quite brief and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search reveals additional incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. A merge is not appropriate in this case because there is nothing to merge. Kanban Tool is not a subsidiary of Kanban (development), and software entries are typically removed from list and overview articles (with the exception of parent company articles) when the software is not notable enough to have a standalone page.Dialectric (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 25 May 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 03:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Silver[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying nonscene awards, only a single nomination (if that). CAVR Awards are, by established consensus, not notable and do not contribute to establishing notability. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Survived most recent AFD due to scene award noms, which no longer satisfy PORNBIO requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of PORNBIO (two winners) and the GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require far better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have met a previous version of WP:PORNBIO, but only recognised awards are for scenes. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO. CAVR Award wins are minor. Fails GNG. I couldn't find significant coverage by independent reliable sources in search. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - God fucking damn I hate these idiotic pornbios. Seriously, where under our BLP guidelines would this unsourced statement: "Many of her videos featured her in anal and oral sex and lesbian sex." be okay? Other than the fact there is ZERO actual biographical content here. Abject failure of GNG and common sense. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't normally participate in these, but User:Carrite's comment above deserves an enthusiastic "Amen!". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 24 May 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caressa Savage[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Reported mainstream appearances are borderline at best, generally do not involve notable projects; and there is no evidence or sourcing for the claim that the subject's were substantial enough to meet the "featured" requirement of PORNBIO rather than being minor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of PORNBIO (two winners) and the GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Scene related awards don't count towards PORNBIO so PORNBIO is not met. I know your grip on the GNG is tenuous at best so perhaps you can explain how the article meets GNG. The sources look inadequate for a BLP myself. Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed in every single PORN related AFD Subtropical-man's been !voting keep, Is there any reason for this ?, I just find it odd that you seem to want every single non notable porn model kept ?, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not all, I support (keep) of all encyclopedic pornstars, well-known pornstars or/and with the winners or with many nominations. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 15:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Before we get carried away with any discussion and/or debate, let review PORNBIO as it applies to Miss Savage. First off, as she's retired so its unlikely that she'll be winning any additional awards unless she returns to porn. Second, she's not a Hall of Fame member, but going by her work history on IAFD she does appear to be one of the earlier performers that predominantly appeared in lesbian or "girl/girl" videos with regard to "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". BUT, we'd need a source for that, not just my "eyeball analysis". So third, that leaves us with "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media". The New york Times reviewed one of the documentaries she was in [1] and the other two, though not well covered do seem legitimate in terms of not being "industry promo", actually the opposite. That said, there is little information about Miss Savage in general. Even AVN, XBIZ, and AEBN are light on info about her. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Times did not review the documentary mentioned above; the linked "review" comes from the allmovie guide. No indication that the doc is notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wolfie, I think its nice that the summary is on Allmovie.com as well.[2] Isn't it great that the NY Times agrees with Allmovie's overview and endorses it by posting it on their website. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Scalhotrod, Savage is an award winning girl/girl only performer, so she passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #2. Lets not forget that Savage did porn in the 90's, long before the Girl/Girl Performer of the Year category was created by AVN and XBIZ in 2014. So, it's not fair to completely disregard wins for scene-related and ensemble categories when that is the only thing the recipient was eligible for. If the article isn't kept, it should at least be userfied because there is still a possibility that she will be inducted into the AVN or XRCO Hall of Fame, even if she is retired. Jasmin St. Claire for example, was inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame 10 years after retiring. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Phony arguments, Rebecca. Despite what you say now, "girl/girl only" performers were generally eligible for, nominated for, and sometimes won qualifying awards under PORNBIO. And there's no case for the PORNBIO 2 argument, given that the "trend-setting" scenes she won awards for were in volumes 13 and 16 of a series. There might be a case, say, if volume 1 was involved. And, as usual, you produce absolutely no sourcing or evidence to back up your claims. If you think the article subject is a likely candidate for an industry hall of fame, some independent, third-party commentary is needed, rather than your own pulled-from-the-air PR notions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Phony counter argument, Wolfie Your assertions are fairly easy to dismiss since all you did was a cursory review of her work on IAFD. I can't see how which volume numbers of the series has any relevance when its the fact that she won awards for girl/girl scenes that indicates her contribution to the genre. Furthermore, out of 197 credits, 145 of them are for "LezOnly" or girl/girl, nearly 3/4's of her work is devoted to ONE genre. Looks significant to me... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, Delete. Although I accept the point made above that the Girl/Girl Performer of the Year category was created only recently, we are not psychics, and thus cannot guess who would have won such an award in 1997 or 1999. Thus, the only awards that this person has won are ensemble ones, and thus fail (on current policy guidelines) to create enough notability. If more evidence could be produced to support the claim that she has made an important contribution to the "girl/girl" genre I might be persuaded otherwise, but for now this person seems to fall short of our criteria for notability. RomanSpa (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spa, I can appreciate your stance, but the change to no longer accept ensemble awards is recent as well, within the last few months. Since then there have been a slew of PORN article deletions, mostly for new actresses. That said, I'd like to suggest that we not be in such a hurry to delete the article for an industry veteran from the 90's and 2000's. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you'd told me when I first signed up as an editor of Wikipedia that I would one day be carefully discussing and analysing an article like this, I'd have been incredulous. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Wikipedia works in mysterious ways... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or per Rebecca1990's recommendation Userfy - Becs makes a good point about having a shot at being inducted into a HoF. I can understand the deletions due to the PORN BIO change for newer actresses, but this is a notable industry veteran. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject here appears to have "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" per her appearances in 3 documentaries, on The Jerry Springer Show, and in the book "Top Porn Stars Sex Tips and Tricks".

Note: As for the "change to no longer accept ensemble awards", while I don't necessarily agree with that change in the past, that change to PORNBIO was made a few years ago. Guy1890 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the confusion on my part Guy. You are correct, it was the deletion of Award Nomination's from PORNBIO that was changed recently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rebecca1990 + Scalhotrod. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - OK, just when I thought I was off my nut for thinking that a star as old as Savage could return to the industry, I read this about Karen Summer's return. She's an earlier vintage than Savage, go figure... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 24 May 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 Community gardens in Nebraska. Number 5 7 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee Community Garden[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all references are to the organisations website. GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been updated to reflect additional reliable sources (newspaper), addressing the previous comment regarding references. --ScottHW (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. One local newspaper story does not make significant discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. GoldenRing (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously did negate that comment, which asserted "all" references were of one type. --do ncr am 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be good if more references could be added. And multiple references from the same newspaper would suffice for me. Browsing, it seems there has been a big community gardens initiative in Omaha and elsewhere in the state, e.g. this consortium of 70 community gardens (not including this Dundee one) and many other hits. An alternative could be to create a new List of community gardens in Nebraska and to redirect this article to that, merging content, complying with spirit of wp:PRESERVE. --do ncr am 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Keep~~. In addition to the edits made by Doncram, I added three additional independent references; one from the ABC affiliate in Omaha, another from the Omaha newspaper, and a third a web press release from Omaha Bikes. I believe this should easily satisfy Doncram's request for more references. With multiple independent, reliable sources, as requested by GoldenRing this should article now meets wp:Notability#General_notability_guideline. --ScottHW (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the 2nd Keep vote by ScottHW. You're welcome to comment multiple times, but voting just once, is what's done here in AFD process. --do ncr am 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems locally significant, I don't see wider coverage that would make it notable for an encyclopaedia. otherwise all community gardens will end up in WP. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe most/many of them will end up in WP; by their nature they are public nonprofit beneficial entities that engage the community and will tend to have coverage. Like museums, most of which are Wikipedia-notable. I do think now is a good time to start developing big lists of them, with or without separate articles at first. This one is fine by me. --02:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Like museums, most of which are Wikipedia-notable" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? wp:otherstuffexists states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Museums are good to have covered, in general. I think community gardens are too, and we should be consistent, and consistency is a valid goal for editing in Wikipedia. --do ncr am 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. A Google web search for ("dundee community garden" omaha) turned up no significant coverage in media outside the Omaha area. A Google News search for the same terms produced nothing at all; the older material cited in the article was caught by the first search, so I don't think we're missing anything significant.

We don't appear to have a specific set of guidelines for community gardens as places. However, if we regard DCG as an organization—and much of the article is given over to treating it as such, discussing its 501(c)(3) status, its funding, and its board of directors—then it seems to fail notability under WP:AUD: "[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."

Notability guidelines in other areas also suggest that purely local coverage is insufficient to establish notability; for instance, WP:GEOSCOPE states that "[a]n event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." Absent significant coverage from media outside the Omaha metro, I'm afraid that we don't have notability. Ammodramus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wp:AUD is relevant, but isn't coverage here regional? I do agree there's a judgment call involved about whether Omaha, Nebraska-area coverage is "regional", and qualifies. But Omaha is apparently (per Wikipedia): "the 60th-largest metropolitan area in the United States in 2013 with an estimated population of 895,151 residing in eight counties." That population is bigger than 87 out of 236 nations in the world. The Omaha World-Herald, per Wikipedia, is a notable paper serving Nebraska and Iowa, and is unusual for its high penetration rate, its ownership by Berkshire Hathaway (if BH's purchase did go through?), and being "the only remaining major metropolitan newspaper in the United States to publish both morning and afternoon editions." And KETV is an ABC regional TV station serving a big area.

On balance, I think that regional coverage is enough, and this is a relatively new and vibrant entity with momentum (with its big carrot in parades, and the bike tour, and its new ownership of the site and its 501c3 status and its board) and ScottHW has done a good job developing the article, and there should be more coverage emerging. And there should be more even treatment of community gardens in Wikipedia, but there is so little coverage that specific criteria aren't clear. So, I say KEEP this for now, and if there is not further coverage within 1 year, i will personally stand aside if someone wants to revisit and AFD this again. --do ncr am 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"population is bigger than 87 out of 236 nations in the world" does not elevate the area to a greater than nation status. That is a weak argument. Does Omaha-Nebraska have a seat at the United Nations? What is relevant is the 60th-largest metropolitan area in the United States which doesn't make it a major city.LibStar (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Omaha World-Herald presents state, national, and international news, much of its material can only be regarded as local reportage. For example, it runs articles on many local businesses, including a review of a local bar and one of a local restaurant every week. If we regard coverage by the OWH as establishing notability, then each of these hundreds of local businesses could be the subject of a WP article. These include Omaha's first Chick-fil-A location, which was the subject of much breathless coverage by the OWH around the time of its opening.

The phrasing of WP:AUD refers to "local media, or media of limited interest and circulation". The disjunction suggests that a large (i.e., not "limited") circulation isn't enough: the medium must be non-local as well as widely read. This seems to be corroborated by WP:GEOSCOPE, which denies notability to events "reported only by the media within the immediate region", with no exception for local media with large circulations. Ammodramus (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't grok how "the medium must be non-local as well as widely read" applies; it comes down to whether you think Omaha region is big enough to count as a region for purposes of wp:AUD or not. Point taken about coverage of purely local coverage being included in OWH...but also if the OWH region is big enough then the coverage could be viewed as transformative in a way. Like for example a human interest type story in the New York Times about a local restaurant owner making good, or whatever, seems to bring some real importance to the subject. Since few New Yorkers will ever pass by that local business, it must be the case that the New York Times coverage is establishing some higher importance. Truly local coverage which should not be viewed as establishing notability is the small-town newspaper type coverage merely serving role of providing publicity for local businesses and advertisers. You can, and do, have a different view on whether OWH coverage of Dundee Community Garden is significant enough; i think it is truly of interest, not mere publicity serving the group. --do ncr am 16:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I further don't get some distinctions that Ammodramus is trying to make, but Ammodramus takes offense on behalf of small town journalists by my comment above. Umm... i agreed with Ammodramus that some local coverage, of the type merely serving role of providing publicity, doesn't count as much for Wikipedia-notability. I observe that small town newspapers have different kinds of articles, some being sort of puff pieces as Ammodramus says. But I did not say all small town newspaper coverage was of that type, and in particular I said the OWH coverage of Dundee rose above that. The coverage is of interest and not simply publicity (and a community garden is not a business and does not need publicity particularly). I think he projected that I implied a generalization that i did not, but anyhow i strike the comment. Whatever. --do ncr am 04:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article on Community gardens in Nebraska that covers the movement, the bike event and notes this garden. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This newly-created article doesn't seem to be any better sourced than the one currently under discussion: one of the two sources cited in its current version is decidedly not independent, and the other is a short TV news story about a bike ride associated with community gardens, almost entirely about the event rather than about the gardens. If it came up for AfD, my first inclination, based on the citations in the article, would be to support deletion (although I'd have to dig for sources myself before !voting). Candle, can you provide better sources? I'd be more inclined to support a merge if the target article wasn't itself a potential AfD candidate. Ammodramus (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive: seven empty city lots to be turned into community gardens, City planning document, local award, News story on city council vote for community garden, news story on a community garden makeover, story on celebration of community gardens and another story on a community garden program in Omaha. Seems to be kind of a big deal in Omaha. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Candleabracadabra, who's come up with enough sources to establish notability for a community-gardens-in-Omaha article; move target article to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, since the sources don't seem to cover any other locations in the state. Ammodramus (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the discussion about this article, and the reasoning behind various points of view. Four things stand out.

- The initial point about reliable references has been well addressed. That should have been done long ago, so the "peer editing" process worked like a charm. Wikipedia FTW. Actually... I guess it maybe should have happened before this was listed as AfD.

- The "notability" of the Omaha World Herald seems to be relevant to this discussion, but also a distinct side issue. Whether OWH references meet the threshold for "Notability" should be an ongoing discussion. Is there some audience size, or media market size, that makes a newspaper "Notable"? Some media conglomerate ownership status? Or affiliation, a la TV local network affiliates? It seems unfair to use that contentious topic against the many references that have been given for this article, particularly since several of the references for this article are NOT from OWH.

- It has been suggested that this article might not meet the Notability criteria for an Organization. Any Community Garden is an amalgamation of physical location, garden members, and oversight organization/board of directors, among other things. I feel that this article could be improved to focus more on the garden itself, and that the incorporated 501c3 non-profit organization is de-emphasized and made a specific sub-section. In this spirit, I will work to make such changes.

- Regarding idea of merging this article into a List of gardens within the city (or state), Dundee is a particularly outstanding garden, even compared to other similar organizations. I added another reference that states this explicitly. I agree such a List would be beneficial, and will gladly work to edit and improve that list. However, much like Parks in Omaha, Nebraska, some of the parks in the list are article-worthy in their own right. DCG could be added to the list, but based in particular prominence, I feel it should remain its own article.

ScottHW (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the concern about the Omaha World Herald is not its notability but its reliability. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (whom also happens to be me), So speedy keep per WP:SNOW and close per IAR. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Lions[edit]

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

Team plays in the Midlands 5 West (South), which is a Level 10 English Rugby Union League. Now I don't know much about Rugby, but that doesn't sound very high. The Lions are the only team in the league to have a Wikipedia Page, and the entire team is made up of links to people with similar names or DAB pages, save for the "notable players" that have moved up through the ranks. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – look at their history. Notably club per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs 2011–12 season, the Lions won the National League 3 Midlands Hamish59 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks notable under project notability and under WP:GNG as has multiple sources available. Keith D (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough. While the club may have fallen on hard times and had to restart at the bottom, they previously played in National League 2 South, a much higher league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am happy to withdraw this nomination, thank you for the explanation. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:13, 20 May 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) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BETT[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the world's most prominent and important education technology conventions. Plenty of evidence of notability and passes WP:GNG with sources like the BBC found in a few seconds.[3][4][5][6] And even Michael Gove, the British Secretary of State for Education gave the keynote address at the convention recently.[7] If it's notable enough for a UK Minister, it's notable enough for WP. This nom has a history of starting blanket AfDs with obvious disregard to WP:BEFORE and its becoming disruptive. --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what research the nominator did, but there is coverage across educational media, IT media, and mainstream press.[8][9][10][11][12][13] --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a bit out of date, but I'm pretty sure the biggest educational technology event in the UK is notable. I've tidied it up and will try to expand it a bit more shortly. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Oakshade. --do ncr am 23:14, 20 May 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 03:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Media Distribution[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a media company, created by an editor with a likely COI. I was unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails notability because they operate behind the scenes. One look around the net, the BBB and other sources in the field verify their existence. they have the second largest reporter pool in the world. You need to dig a bit deeper. No one writes articles about these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.184.2 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrX. The onus is on the article creator to provide sourcing. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is false to say that "the onus is on the article creator to provide sourcing". This is not an adversarial process, it is a consensus-building process; we assess whether a subject meets the notability guidelines, not whether a particular person has provided evidence to support notability. That said, I'm not seeing sources that establish notability. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine H2O[edit]

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

not enough reporting from independent sources, and those are not in much depth. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

National Geographic
Water Tech
Techcrunch
The Business Journal
Journal-Sentinel
Milwaukee Business Journal
Food Safety Magazine
Milwaukee Biz Times (paid subscription magazine [14]).
Computer World

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
im inclined to withdraw my AFD, based on NorthAmericas research. i havent checked it myself, but they are reliable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of superhero productions created by Toei. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toei 100 Great Hero Super Fight[edit]

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

A completely non-notable direct-to-video movie from the 1980s in Japan. There are no sources to support its notability other than showing it existed. There were previously citations on the article, but they were merely used to show that a particular entry on the list had an English language title. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now to List of superhero productions created by Toei. In the meantime, userfy article to author so that proper sources toward the video may be added under WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. Article can be returned to mainspace after improvement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a valid search term for that list though. It's an esoteric direct to video movie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Direct-to-video is not always a negative term, and the title is searchable... {though nothing I would look for myself ). However, we send readers to where it makes sense to learn of the Toei heroes when a video does not meet WP:NF. No biggy, but redirects are cheap and it's within policy to help readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google's showing me all of 7 results for this search. Redirects may be cheap but they're not always necessary. It's not a valid search term on Wikipedia to get to the list of Toei superheroes. It shouldn't even be listed in the list-related deletion discussions as it's not intended to be a list unto itself. Wikipedia is better off without the page in any form.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as above. I am persuaded by the suggestion that the title is an unlikely search term but the article does seem to have had at least some page views since creation (even if we disregard the spike toward the start which likely related to creation). I don't know... we certainly shouldn't have an article but I'm inclined to think a redirect would be okay. We can always delete that later if it turns out not to be of any use. Stalwart111 22:36, 18 May 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 03:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal[edit]

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

I've searched and only found a lot of YouTube videos and very little obviously about this person, but as he seems to be considered a saint and someone likely to be held in high esteem, and obviously existed, I thought it was more appropriate to bring this to discussion as a mark of respect to his claimed status than simply speedying it. Mabalu (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had I realised this was a former delete, I would certainly have speedied. Mabalu (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nomination was incorrectly created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal, the place of the former nomination. I have moved it to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal (2nd nomination)" and made the necessary adjustments to the log. Mz7 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject failed a notability check last time, and the subject still seems to fail a notability check this time. The article shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable resource and notability found. Dr meetsingh Talk 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Number 5 7 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia S. Fontaines[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. A couple of the references cannot be found in the online versions of the magazines so it's hard to know whether, e.g., the Marie Claire article is actually primarily about Fontaines, but the sources that can be checked online do not show sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a new article created by a new editor so I have devoted some time to trying to find sources and improving the article instead of nominating it for deletion; sadly, I have been unsuccessful. bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as references go, I stand by my opinion that there is not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The article's author is making contradictory claims (probably based on not understanding how references work) on my user talk page, but has not been able to produce any actual evidence of notability: there are a couple of Hungarian-language articles written by a freelance journalist for a couple of different magazines, which mention the actress (such as one article where she presents her favourite recipe), and a couple of radio interviews for a minor radio station. That is not significant coverage. As for WP:NACTOR, there is no claim that it is met, as there are only minor roles. --bonadea contributions talk 16:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient evidence to meet WP:BIO or NACTOR LibStar (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Written by a single-purpose account, which seems to belong to the same person, in other words autobiography. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:21, 25 May 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, with thanks to participants for improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vazhayila[edit]

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

This appears to be about some place. Normally I don't nominate these articles for deletion (in fact, I'm reluctant to nominate this one), as I believe that populated places are notable, but the article is so poorly written it's better to just start all over. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article is actually about a populated place and it isn't so big that it can't be tidied and made better.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. This is clearly a real settlement, which is all that needs to be demonstrated. Doubtless there are paper sources. Nom's initial reluctance to nominate was correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustachiusz (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 May 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) czar ♔ 17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Atters" Attree[edit]

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

This person may not meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia; of the references in the article, the majority are self-published or closely connected to the subject. The WP:ADVERT, COI and autobiography problems don't help either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are 30 citations here. Even if some of them could be said to have some self interest, firstly that is no reason to remove them (it's a reason to not rely on them, which is different), secondly there are still adequate cites that do meet WP:RS to pass WP:N.

Yet again. not all sources are required to meet our highest standards. We can use other sources in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — (agree with the above, plus...) some of these sources are of an unusually high prominence for notability to come into question; i.e. major newspapers and magazines; it's also worth noting that the references provided span a number of years, indicating protracted notability. It's appropriate that we are cautious of any autobiographical or promotional elements, but that should encourage clean-up rather than be used to justify deletion of an article whose subject otherwise meets WP:GNG and is verifiable. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitoor[edit]

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

The article provides no information regarding the principal photography of the film. It's a WP:TOOSOON case. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Fitoor Abhishek Kapoor Siddharth Roy Kapur Katrina Kaif Aditya Roy Kapur

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

Keep and allow improvements to this article through regular editing. I wrote WP:TOOSOON and an adressable lack of content is a reason to add and improve such, not delete (See: WP:WIP, WP:IMPROVE, WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:UGLY]). Rather thana "delete", a possible redirect is a consideration for a very short while to director Abhishek Kapoor where policy and guideline instruct that this sourcable topic may be discussed. And not having begun filming is NOT a reason to delete a topic if notability per guideline can still be determined. We look at available sources and decide if coverage of production as instructed in WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. This one may be a very close call to some, but WP:GNG is our basis for notability ss supported by policy.India Today Mid-Day Times of India India Today India Glitz Bollywood Life DNA NDTV Bollywood Life DNA Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My personal view of WP:TOOSOON is in-line with Schmidt's. Not sure if the film as gone into principal shooting yet, but its coverage in reliable sources makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily pass article criteria. Daan0001 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaarly[edit]

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

I don't believe this company meets WP:NCORP. The secondary sources are reports about the company from 2011 when it was a startup, and I can't find anything more recent. The fact that the official website now belongs to a house cleaning service by the same name doesn't do much to strengthen its claims to notability. In addition, the article text is almost entirely promotional. bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found this techcrunch article which seems to indicate that the company might become notable at some point in the future, but not now. --bonadea contributions talk 19:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The housecleaning may just be a currently featured service? (Though it doesn't seem easy to get past that and see other services) The "About Zaarly" maerial further down the webpage has a better match to the article text. I did find one more recent source, an article from the Washington Post covering the emerging field but using Zaarly as an example ([15], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). AllyD (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do think that WP:NCORP is satisfied by the secondary sources present in the article where the primary topic is Zaarly. I do not think it matters that the 2ndary sources are from 2011, notability is not transient, so if it satisfied NCORP in 2011, it still does. I've done some copyediting to the citations to make it a little more apparent they are non-trivial news items; I also added the WikiProject Companies banner to the talk page so it appears in that groups alerting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:48, 18 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dunlap[edit]

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

Unsourced for nine years.

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this poet in order to evidence notability under WP:BASIC. Additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't located anything on the Jim Dunlap of this longstanding unreferenced WP:BLP either. Despite the directory listings that are claimed, even if these were verified they would not be sufficient for WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found these online. He's also been named among the top 100 in Writer's Digest's "Poets & Writers magazine". He seems notable. I think we can at least use the second link, the on the boston poetry site. Hope this helps. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.pw.org/content/jim_dunlap_1
http://bostonpoetry.wordpress.com/jim-dunlap/
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/an-ode-to-shani-dev/
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/webmaker02
http://classicalpoets.org/chinas-latest-holocaust-by-jim-dunlap/

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- GreenC 03:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unhappy that the sources may not be reliable. I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Boston Poetry Magazine, regarding one of them. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he seems to have a good claim to notability in the lead sentence of his article, none of the sources can be considered reliable sources. See comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Boston Poetry Magazine regarding what might have been the best of the touted sources. He has no awards and I was unable to verify the statement about top ranking in Writer's Digest magazine. For example he is not mentioned on their website. --Bejnar (talk) 23:01, 29 May 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Fekkai[edit]

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

This page has vacillated between being a stub and puffery since its inception. Horse Badorties (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't preview it, but there is an autobiographical entry on him in the Encyclopaedia of Hair: A Cultural History plus, he is placed in context of 1990s hairdressing in a separate section of the same book. Magazine sources include: New York Magazine, 1993 (plus another article from 1995 not about his hairstyling, but about his "celeb lifestyle"), another article in Palm Beach Life, Winter 2003; and quite a number of other hits in Google Books for magazines. I think that's more than enough to show his notability in the field, plus I noticed that there are quite a few hits in Google News, which indicates he has still continued to receive regular coverage/namechecks in the last month or so. Definitely seems notable. Mabalu (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mabalu. --do ncr am 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: -- I am not into fashion at all, hair or otherwise, but this is an internally known successful businessman and stylist, like Vidal Sassoon, or, comparably, fashion-wise, Givenchy or Galliano or Tom Ford. Quis separabit? 17:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wouldn't go quite THAT far! - but yes, definitely a bit better known than yer usual salon stylist. Mabalu (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad bin Khalid Al Thani[edit]

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

Unsourced, previously unsourced save to random web sites. Can't verify much if anything here, there's no ar.wiki article on the fellow (at least under معالي سعادة الامير حمد بن خالد بن حمد بن عبد الله آل ثاني ), and i can't verify the signficant claim to notability here -- chief of the Qatar police force, everything else is either a bit promotional or genealogical cruft. But additional sources--even verification of being chief of the Qatari police in a reliable source, would be of assistance here. Thanks. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does seem to be notable. The police in Qatar are under the Ministry of Interior. It would appear that they are under Director General of Public Security Staff in Qatar which is currently Maj. Gen. Saad bin Jassim al Khulaifi. ( here). I don't know what that says about the status of a police chief. Hamad's fuller name is "Hamad bin Khalid bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani". Hamad's father's Wikipedia article ar:خالد بن حمد بن عبد الله آل ثاني (Khalid bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani) says that the son Hamad was "Adjutant General of Police" before entering commerce, but provides no years. Now an article at wikimapia this page agrees with his birth year and place (city of Al Rayyan in 1952), but says Hamad was Deputy Commander of the Armed Forces 1973-1978 and Police chief, 1978-1988; which is at variance with our article. Here is an obituary from the Aji Network of 16 September 2012 for Hamad bin Khalid bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani, which agrees with the wikimapia article. Aji Network appears to be as reliable as I can find. here on 15 Sept. 2012 is another obit, without much content, just praising him. A mosque in the area of Ain Khalid has been named after him and an foundation established to provide for a Quran school. the quran school is "حمد بن خالد لتعليم القرآن ". Oh, Arabic for his shorter name is حمد بن خالد آل ثاني and for his longer one : حمد بن خالد بن حمد بن عبد الله آل ثاني --Bejnar (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jusay Ancestral House[edit]

Request withdrawn

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

Not notable, only primary sources available as far as I can see. Mabalu (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the creator's edits, I have the impression that the house might be an official historic structure in the Philippines. There is an apparently incomplete list of listed houses at this site. It's one of just two articles edited by the creator. It needs work, but nomination for deletion is not the way forward. Let's not bite the newbies. --do ncr am 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any evidence that it was officially listed. What sources I saw seemed to be demands for attention for the house's cause organised by its owners, nothing official. Since then, this source (which seems to be a Wikimedia project) seems to have popped up. As the article itself says - "The heiress, Melody Jusay, is planning to sell the house after completing all the necessary documentary requirements" - I can only conclude from statements like this that this article is actually a form of advertising/promotion trying to make the house sound more important and significant - which having an article on Wikipedia seems to confer, even though the only real sources seem to be interviews with the lady trying to flog her house and a Wikiproject. Are we estate agents now? Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is self-interested promotion to facilitate a sale. Absurd, really, to think that creating an English language Wikipedia article like this would be high on the "To Do" list of a real estate agent in the Philippines! Instead, it sounds rather more like this property is being documented in preparation for full listing on a historic registry. It might or might not have some preliminary or "nominated" listing status, but evidently at least some persons feel that it merits nomination or listing. Analogous to how we handle historic registries for other countries, it may be good to include articles for sites in the nomination process, or in the end maybe only ones that have achieved listing should automatically get separate articles.

I am more sure that this is an early Wiki-editing experience of several persons, and some for whom English is not their first or second language. For example this diff has erased a couple categories that I added, rather than refining them; not the sign of experienced editors.

Thank you for finding link to this WMF project about creating documentation on "all cultural properties in the Philippines", as specified by the Philippine Cultural Heritage Law. That seems like exactly it. It would be much better to contact the editors and to help with their process of bringing their works into the English wikipedia. And to document the historic site nomination process and sort out which levels should be deemed automatically wikipedia-notable, vs. not. This discussion/development is a natural project of WikiProject Historic Sites and/or of wp:Philippines. I will start discussion at wt:HSITES to try to recruit historic sites editors from other countries to help, and will post also at talk page of Philippines wikiproject.

Move to close on procedural basis, that an AFD on one article created is NOT the way to start dealing with what sounds like a great new initiative that should be supported and channeled, not battled. Hold off on this AFD and don't start new AFDs, please. I volunteer to keep track of a list of new articles of this type created, so that they could all be improved together, and so that "deletionist"-inclined editors don't have to worry that a few articles might get through (I'll keep track at wt:HSITES#Philippine Cultural Heritage sites). Anyone so concerned would have time to come back to dispute any, later. An RFC could perhaps be helpful, about what criteria required for separate Philippine historic site articles, but we're not ready for that, either, we need to make productive contact, first. --do ncr am 16:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hand this over to you to deal with. For the record, it came up as a long-unreviewed page on Page Curation that had gone without attention for a long time, I kept coming back to it and debating how to handle it because regardless of what you may think, I'm actually not really a deletionist. I did look for sources, as I wanted to see that this was notable, but really couldn't find them. Clearly it took an AFD and over a week up for deletion before anyone even noticed and cared enough to kick up a stink about it, so mission achieved. Over to you now. :) Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks!! I will try, have started posting at wt:HSITES. Glad you struggled with how to deal with it, and that AFD maybe has worked then. And that you found way to GLAM-wiki project link. What I'll try to add is connection to similar treatment of historic registries in other countries. What I hate in many other sets of AFDs is that it can become apparent there is a group of similar articles that ought to be dealt with somehow -- not in AFD -- but wp:BATTLE mentality can come into play, and a process better than AFD can't really be tried, and newbies and/or experienced editors get bashed with negative deletions. Hmm, i see that Wikipedia:Page Curation is apparently a replacement for New Page Patrol. Okay, again, Thanks. --do ncr am 17:03, 19 May 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 — Abhishek ^Talk 15:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N S Narendra[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the standard of notability. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: This article has changed significantly since I nominated it. It still needs work, but I believe the notability issue has been taken care of. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant entrepreneur, founder :ನಿತಿನ್ (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and wikify: Can the nom elaborate on which part of notability this article does not meet? It fairly passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Though we may need to cleanup the article and make it independent of primary sources, I don't really think it needs to be deleted. — Abhishek ^Talk 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Yale School of Management. Nothing sourced to merge (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Insights[edit]

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

An impressive list of blue-linked contributors but notability is not inherited. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yale School of Management. The only reference for this article is the website of the publication itself, which offers email subscriptions, but no indication of how to subscribe to print editions. Are these only mailed to alumni? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yale School of Management. It does not have an impressive record at Google scholar. --Bejnar (talk) 02:57, 23 May 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 03:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cy-Gor[edit]

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

Another non notable character without third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no claim to independent notability, and consisting almost entirely of in-universe information.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:40, 25 May 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) czar ♔ 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Sublime[edit]

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

very short article on non-notable compilation; no sources found Vanjagenije (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could not find an overwhelming amount of information on this compilation, but it was certified gold in the US (500,000 copies) and made the Billboard albums chart (albeit barely). I added these points, as well as an Allmusic review [16], to the article. Gongshow talk 01:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not much but it appears to be enough to at least pass notability requirements. Good job Gongshow. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 20 May 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 03:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitnote[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; could not find any reliable sources that mention the subject. Agyle (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's discussed on various Bitcoin webpages, but not finding any coverage in reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Northamerica - very little coverage in reliable, thirty-party sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There are many number of reasons why this should be closed, not the least of which are the snowball clause and Ignore All Rules. Drmies has suggested that Candleabracadabra give his blessing before this closure, however that is not necessary. After all CAC would not have written this article if he have wanted it deleted. Should someone wish to provide a good faith reason why this should be deleted, and nominate it again, so be it. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

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

Is this a legitimate article subject? I was unable to move the article back so a history merge from Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine is needed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. I visited Hawaii most recently six months ago, and since I am interested in cuisine, discovered many books on Hawaiian cuisine. Of couse, the cuisine before the arrival of Captain Cook's expedition is a highly notable topic, and the article is well-referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article because there is a dispute over whether it should exist as an independent article from Cuisine of Hawaii and this seems like an appropriate venue to get community input on how best to handle the subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend keeping this article, but cutting way back on the material about post-contact food, which is covered better and more appropriately at Cuisine of Hawaii, which is of course a fusion cuisine. I believe that these are two related but discrete topics, each worthy of an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen. Hafspajen (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the redirect should have been deleted before moving the article out of draft space,. Candleabracadabra, with as many edits as you have, you should know by now that you can't just copy/paste, even within Wikipedia, without providing attribution. Now a history merge (that could have easily been avoided) has to be done. I am happy to do it now, unless there is an objection of it being completed mid-AfD. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Kelapstick that I don't yet know all the procedural intricacies of Wikipedia. I blanked the page and you are welcome to delete it and move the article back from draft space. No history merge needed. I tried to move the article back to mainspace for the AfD but my powers are not great enough to achieve such endeavors on my own. I will leave a redirect in the meantime. It saddens me that I have disappointed you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well it is all sorted now, I have moved the draft back here so it has all the attribution required. Draft redirects here, and what not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Kelapstick. Maybe this service you performed takes you off the shitlist. Maybe you can close this AfD as a SNOW keep/nomination withdrawn, if Candleabracabra blesses it? Drmies (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). Despite the few guideline-based delete !votes, consensus herein is very strong that the subject passes various notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ENT). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzannah Lipscomb[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

a user User:TheRedPenOfDoom is repeatedly adding not notable to the story - the subject is imo borderline notable and the article and talk is borderline attacking now and deletion is a good position for the person - Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was nominated without a template. Just fixed it. This is Paul (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject has made several contributions to literature, television, print media, etc, which would be fine for an encyclopedia article. There are other issues going on with this page, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. I'm not sure about the rationale for nominating this, and can't help thinking it's all just part of the ongoing dispute involving this topic. This is Paul (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you expand upon where you are seeing significant coverage in third party sources? We have the schools that she teaches at and the channels that produced/broadcast the TV shows that she appeared in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, here's a few references discussing Lipscomb and her work, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and last but not least this one, which describes her as "award-winning academic, author and historian Dr Suzannah Lipscomb". I found most of these within five minutes of searching, but I'm sure a more in depth Google search would shed light on those awards. This is Paul (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its pretty obvious that it was a quick search because there is a distinct lack of content about the subject of the article by third parties in any of them. There are promotional blurbs where she repeats the content of the shows/her books. There is an essay that she wrote about why she chose to work at a small school over a large school, one of the others she is not mentioned at all, it is just a sidebar link back to her essay. one she is quoted briefly from her essay. etc. Yes, she may be a "go to" talking head for a quick quote, but that does not establish notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENTERTAINER. The minor contributions to writing or television have not been covered by third parties.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Changing to keep based on the reviews that Voceditenore found showing that she does meet WP:ENT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references provide ample evidence that she exists, but little that she is notable. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

person gets very good returns from search engines - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Suzannah+Lipscomb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PgV5U5jpG-bR8gfEp4GQAw - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GHITS - we require coverage in reliably published sources and so you if you find any in that search result, please bring forth any specific ones. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please delete it if Wiki are unable to control negative contributors, such as User:TheRedPenOfDoom who keep messing the facts around such that this page is now but a shadow of the truth, although I imagine that his purpose in being so destructive is to make deletion a possibility. The current version has no references to higher qualifications although ample evidence has been shown and which must be obvious when one considers the subject's activities. Many other things too have been removed. It seems that Wikipedia is unable to maintain the truth. Removal would be preferable to this shadow of the facts pertaining to the subject, which was originally submitted to Wikipeia by the subject's employer, New College of the Humanities.MdeBohun (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry to intervene but the word "negative" is negative, not that user.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"is now but a shadow of the truth, " from the person who is adamant that the marriage not be mentioned! ROFLMFAO!!! "truth" seeker indeed!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user TheRedPenOfDoom should continue to be blocked from editing this page as it is clear from his comments above that he is a one track pony, only concerned with the subject's marriage status, which is married / separated / getting divorced. It's fine to mention the marriage so long as the latest situation is included, but that's not his purpose. There are other awards than those currently shown that have been removed, e.g. 'In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘natural fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. ^[1] and 'In 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4)' - See more at: ^[2].

One track pony?! Have you looked at his contribution record? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason somebody is aiming to undermine the subject by removing references to her doctorate but leaving her high school. Removing awards, but insisting upon marriage status. Users with no agenda, such as as This is Paul should be asked to sort out this mess. The subject never asked for a Wikipedia page and would prefer not to have one if it is constantly sabotaged by others removing relevant facts.MdeBohun (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I didnt bring up the marriage until you started going on about how the article doesnt reflect the "truth". The facts are clear that you dont actually care about "the truth" - only about the parts of "the truth" that the subject of the article wants to include. WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST - we dont do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to mention a previous marriage, so long as the latest situation is included, ie separated and getting divorced. That is truth, I think it is clear that TheRedPenofDoom is childishly majoring on a very minor aspect of the page and has thus jeopardised it's existence. His aggressive style is that of the ex-husband.MdeBohun (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has "jeopardised" the page's existence is the fact that there is a grand lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In terms of notability, I believe she meets the guidelines (as stated above), but if the subject herself is unhappy with having a Wikipedia page then that must be considered, and I would support her wish. I believe there is a process by which someone can ask to have a page about them deleted (I've seen it happen a couple of times). I believe Suzannah Lipscomb would have to contact Wikipedia herself to get the ball rolling, but maybe someone can refresh my memory about what has to be done. In the event the article is kept I'd be happy to do what I can to tidy it up and add it to my watchlist, but my concern would be the disagreement over what should and shouldn't be included may continue. It seems to kick off every time she appears on TV at present. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- while it would not guarantee deletion, Lipscomb could use the WP:OTRS system to identify herself and make her wishes known. In cases like this of marginal notability, the users wish to be off wiki will often be taken into consideration by !voters and the admin determining the consensus. Note the the subject cannot be "I dont want the current version, but I do want one where I approve and like all of the content."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received coverage from Dailymail, History Today, Telegraph. OccultZone (Talk) 04:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires coverage in reliable sources. so that tosses the Daily Mail out. The Telegraph if you are talking about [23] is not at all about Lipscomb- its a promo blurb for a TV show and she is mentioned as having a role in it. There is no History Today in the article or in this page that I can see. Can you link to it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[24], [25]. OccultZone (Talk) 06:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the History Today links are to articles that she has written, not to any significant content about her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of course this page should be kept. Suzannah Lipscomb is an eminent historian. I have viewed her page before and wondered at the changes, why are her qualifications, awards and TV programmes removed, and I agree that it looks as if it is being targeted by somebody with an agenda against her. In her position I am sure she would wish to have a Wikipedia page if it did not keep being damaged, one that reflected the facts of her life. I do not see what is wrong with the reference above to History Today, it seems to show many articles written by Suzannah Lipscomb for that magazine. The stats show 2,500+ viewings from time-to-time, which surely means she is of interest.Kinabalu14 (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)— Kinabalu14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and its Articles for Deletion page. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"eminent " historians would be widely cited in the academic literature. there is no evidence that she is. popular historians would have their works reviewed in the popular press, there is no evidence that hers have been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A high-profile author and broadcaster. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I the only contributor who has not been WP:BLUDGEONed by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ? . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe because you didnt even attempt to make a policy based argument. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Highly acceptable in the UK and around the world for her works in history. Most of her achievements has been removed from her page. Daan0001 (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~most of her works have not been documented by reliable sources, which is wikipedia's standard for establishing notability.~~ -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore has now found and provided third party coverage of several of the entertainment shows. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else think there's an element of WP:BLUDGEON starting to creep into this discussion? This is Paul (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than an element of WP:BLUDGEON in this discussion, the whole discussion is interspersed with insidious comments to diminish the subject. I now intend to report this a WP:BULLYING, to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard as one contributor on here wants to 'give the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large.'MdeBohun (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - the subject has appeared on several documentary TV shows, including BBC Four and National Geographic, which would allow her to pass WP:NACTOR alone~~, although she fails WP:PROF~~. Even assuming her life has been covered in the Daily Mirror, a mention in a non-reliable source does not taint an otherwise notable person (see Woody Allen and Paloma Picasso in the New York Post). I'm leaning to a keep, but would prefer better sourcing about the subject. Userfication is another option. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing based on sources and discussion below. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I fail to see why Dr. Lipscomb's page should be deleted. She lectures on history extensively, e.g. Chalke Valley History Festival,^[3] the BBC History magazine history weekend at Malmesbury, both this year^[4] and last year, and in 2009 she toured American universities lecturing. I have found one example^[5], and there are more. I can't imagine why this page is being considered for deletion.Wrecklesham (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Wrecklesham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Of course I have made no comments about anybody else, I just made an account to comment on this travesty, about which I felt strongly. This doesn't make my opinion any weaker than anyone else's.Wrecklesham (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Help required to improve this story - this is all that is being allowed in about her education by the User:TheRedPenOfDoom repeatedly removing details claiming there is some 'consensus' that Lipscomb is not a reliable source about herself;

Lipscomb was educated at Nonsuch High School for Girls. She is a governor at Epsom

This is her actual education history - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608342822&oldid=608342536

Lipscomb was educated at Nonsuch High School for Girls,[1] and at Epsom College,[1] where she is now a governor.[2] She then attended Lincoln College at the University of Oxford where she was awarded a double first class honours degree in Modern History and a Masters in Historical Research.[3] See page 34[4] She then won the Jowett Senior Scholarship to Balliol College, University of Oxford, from where she was awarded a doctorate in history.[5] Her doctoral supervisor was Robin Briggs, All Souls College, University of Oxford.[6][7]

If the article is not to more honestly be allowed to report her actual status then please move to deletion. Can you not see how demeaning and attacking it is to create a story about someone so qualified and yet only report such trivialities? Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites, an h-index of 3!. Does not make WP:GNG yet as a pop history presenter. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep: This is an easy one. Dr. Lipscomb's page should be kept and corrected to the way it was before all of the deletions. She lectures on history all over the World. I can't fathom why this page is being considered for deletion. She is also a well know TV presenter^[6] and this^[7] plus many others. In addition a published author^[8] She is an academic/author/presenter of tremendous repute. I read all of the opinions above and I find this to be a case of this person being of a WP:BLUDGEON bordering on WP:BULLYING She obviously has impeccable credentials.Thewho515 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)— Thewho515 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ http://www.allthekingsfools.co.uk/site/
^ http://www.sixteenthcentury.org/prizes/roelker/
^ http://www.cvhf.org.uk/speaker/suzannah-lipscomb/
^ http://www.historyweekend.com/speaker/suzannah-lipscomb
^ http://www2.wlu.edu/x35869.xml
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2013/50/hidden-killers.html
^ http://natgeotv.com/uk/bloody-tales-1
^ http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/authors/suzannah-lipscomb

Keep Primarily because the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER Criterion 1 (has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions) by virtue of having been the presenter of multiple television series/programs for notable British broadcasting companies, BBC, ITV, Channel 5 (plus the National Geographic Channel) I have included references to reviews (not simple TV listings) for three of these programs in The Independent and Daily Telegraph. The Clive James review in the Daily Telegraph devotes at least a paragraph to her. I have also included as a reference an article devoted to her—not just an interview—in the Oxford Times which verifies a fair amount of the biographical information. She could even pass WP:PROF Criterion 3 (is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association) via her election as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and Criterion 7 (has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, e.g. if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area). There is ample evidence of this, the dismissive description of her as "the go-to person" in the popular press above merely supports this. Note also that the specialised criteria at WP:PROF and WP:ENTERTAINER are alternatives to passing WP:GNG and only require one of the criteria to be met—not all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the contributor above has been canvassed on his talk-page by an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: MdeBohun commented on my talk page about things he/she wanted added to the article over an hour after [26] I had begun editing the article [27]. This discussion at ANI was the reason I began editing the article and evaluating whether it should be kept or not. As for MdeBohun's suggestions of what to add, I implemented none of them because they were all inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the rather large number of single purpose new accounts showing up here to !vote "keep", you are actually harming the chances of this article of being kept by flooding this page with walls of text, inappropriate personalised arguments directed at other editors, and unsuitable sources, which clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of the inclusion criteria Wikipedia uses, nor what is considered a reliable source. Your !votes will be discounted. To those experienced editors who are !voting "delete", please ignore the presence and commentary of these SPAs (and the editor with a clear conflict of interest) and evaluate the arguments for keeping or deleting this article dispassionately and objectively. I know, it's hard to do when you're being unfairly accused of bludgeoning and bullying and faced with these walls of text from the SPAs, but do it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I was canvassed about this issue last night, but had already made my thoughts known here before that. I'll withdraw from the debate, but will just say the way this discussion is being conducted is very unhelpful. Also, I made reference to WP:BLUDGEON because there's no need for editors to respond to every comment with which they disagree, which is what appeared to be happening when I posted the comment. This is Paul (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will stand behind my asking for people to provide specifics and evidence to back up generalities. particularly when as happened a number of times in this discussion, the specifics and evidence show that the initial generality is not actually supported.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But should be renamed "How Not To Edit Your Daughter's / Mothers / BFF's / Granddaughter's / Neice's Wiki Page." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - presenter of four separate national tv programmes? Of course she's notable. --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MdeBohun who has admitted to being a relative of the subject is trying to dictate what can and cannot be added. This is not a promotional space. (Lw1982 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)) — Lw1982 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment We don't delete articles because an SPA has edited them. --NellieBly (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not a major academic, but her career as a TV presenter combined with her academic profile make her notable enough. For some reason this article has descended into a quagmire of deletions and restorations of content, for which, IMO, several editors are to blame, with childish tit-for-tat deletions and weird additions of odd content. All this is clearly related to some sort of acrimonious dispute between parties outside Wikipedia, but it's resulted in a very ugly mess. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known notable TV presenter. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG handily. --NellieBly (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly a fair number of the sources are underwhelming in how much coverage they give the subject, but they are easily numerous and substantial enough on the whole that the article passes GNG, and BIO considerations, with ease. The article has issues, but they can be resolved with a little time and patience and a more collaborative approach. Snow talk 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and discipline edit warriors. This appears to be a bad faith nomination. The subject has written notable books and curated exhibits at visible venues; she easily passes GNG and BLP, AUTHOR and AC. Detractors seem intent on defacing the page which is not helpful to the project. Possibly Speedy Keep though this is headed for a snow close anyway. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable TV presenter. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets notability requirements for stand alone article. Nomination is flawed for it seeks deletion in preference to the articles published content, to wit: not liking it is not a valid reason to delete; WP:SOFIXIT applies—a strong collaboration is currently in progress, to that end! In my opinion, a snow close is warranted.—John Cline (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced that FRHistSoc is enough for WP:PROF — their eligibility requirements look like you only need to be a published history author for that, rather than the more distinguished academic level that criterion is looking for. But the multiple in-depth published reviews of her television and book works are enough for WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be interested to know where David Eppstein (talk) found the information that says that the Royal Historical Society makes Fellows only on the basis of them being published history authors as I couldn't find the criteria on their website? MdeBohun (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable under WP:PROF, just as David E says, but notable under both WP:CREATIVE and the GNG. The inherent quality of the work is irrelevant to WP:CREATIVE, and very certainly not to the GNG, just that it be widely read and commented on. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not notable as an historian, but clearly notable as an entertainer for the middle-brow, middle-income middle classes. RomanSpa (talk) 07:03, 23 May 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 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maguire (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - no title fights Peter Rehse (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. He had a high ranking as a junior amateur, but junior achievements aren't sufficient to show notability. Not sure what is meant when it says he was a member of the Olympic team but didn't qualify for the Olympics in either of his weight classes because other fighters did. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. I agree with the previous comments about him not showing notability.Jakejr (talk) 22:32, 21 May 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 17:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies about Pope John Paul II[edit]

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

Original research/synthesis. The article cites various poems, speeches etc and postulates that they're prophecies about Pope John Paul II. The conclusion that they're prophecies about him is not drawn in any of the cited sources, but synthesized in the article itself. Kolbasz (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

No synthesis. No original research.

And now fulfilled terms as for sources and footnotes.Jakub Szymański (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for your mantra:

"The article cites various poems, speeches etc and postulates that they're prophecies about Pope John Paul II. The conclusion that they're prophecies about him is not drawn in any of the cited sources, but synthesized in the article itself".

There is now following number of cited sources, who explicity connect cited "poems" with Person Pope John Paul II as Prophecies about Him:

internet 4, books 12, papers 3.

Do this will melt down scepticism of yours or there is nothing which can crush him? Because you are per se prussian soldier ?Jakub Szymański (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Only the author of the article has made a connection between the "prophecies" (actually many aren't even that) and JPII, and those connections are in any case tenuous. It's a a devotional essay. Absolute WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Dear Ignorant DeCausa - please check article now. And You before next time will put forward objections, first You learn Polish language and check all matter more profoundly, and not only on surfaces of mind and imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "devotional essay" - first encyclopedia on the world was writen by St Isidore of Seville... but do You even know about that, dear Iberian?

Writting about religious matters not neccessary mean that something is devotional, but that you write about spiritual matters and angle of view is little different... (but still in norm of rational thinking).

Fides ratio quarens, puer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.163.199 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jakub, although I'm not an Iberian, according to our article on him it seems that Isidore of Seville would not have engaged in original research in the way you have. From the article:

..."in fact, in the majority of his works, including the Origines, he contributes little more than the mortar which connects excerpts from other authors, as if he was aware of his deficiencies and had more confidence in the stilus maiorum than his own" his translator Katherine Nell MacFarlane remarks.

You need to emulate him (apart from the potential copyright violation).DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Yes I know works of St Isidore in latin. And He is really Master in finding and making sentences from works of other Peoples, but not only, He is more then this. He is probably The Best in this in whole world. But believe to Me, this is Gift. And He also adds there His Own Material with virtuosity.

When I made reference to Him, I had on mind rather this that He, as ecclesiastic writer not had any problem with construction of first book knowledge encyclopedic, i.e. Etymologies.

As for "Iberian". If there would be writen: De Causa - of course this have own meaning. But: DeCausa - sounds iberian, do You not think so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No change, despite claims by article's author here and elsewhere to have resolved issues. Still SYNTH/ESSAY. DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

You are wonderful, one on who we always can count. If there is some club in which they believe that Earth is flat, you definite should be on list in such place...Jakub Szymański (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's so cute. Delete as totally unencyclopedic per nom and DeCausa. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Ignorance is a blessing. Dear Konieczny You are good example of this. Article is still under construction, but as for now holds Wiki standards. Check again now.

Besides you should see articles in category: prophecy. I don't think that they are made in better style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Putting your personal attacks aside, if you want to improve the article over time, you can ask for it to be userfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

No personal attacks. As Pole basiclly you should know these stories at last as from hearing...

And I'm senstitive to remarks, i.e. I try improve this what was indicated as "gap".

So check this time, I add on 19 May next additional references (8 with 10 sources). So You can check this for yourself, and let to know to some peoples from other parts of world that infos included in article have strong base. Jakub Szymański (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly WP:SYNTH. Devotional rather than neutral in both tone and content.--Trystan (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Dear Trystan

When you advertise yourself as gender promotor, I have strong conviction that your opinion is not fully meritorical and as I suspect very non-neutral. Because gender is ideology, so you seems to be also: devotional in this way.

As for article, he is rather: inspirational.

You should rethink all matter, and let Me know. If you have some remarks about content of article, share with this, but you should indicate exactly what part...

Best regards dear Trystan (and Isolde, perhaps). Jakub Szymański (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research ąnd a personal essay (WP:NOT#ESSAY). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

In which part this Article is original research? Or maybe Saint Barnstar you are little jealous? If you are not lazy go through all footnotes in fully (in which Polish language should help you) and then back with remarks. Because if you have abilities and not use them in logical thinking... So in your case investigation this is a matter of decency...Jakub Szymański (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Boy Kpalion, you also make mental mistakes in other issues. For example: after partition of Poland there was not "Polish state". So if you named heads of "Polish state" some russian aggressors, this is mental aberration (this was only russian cover for "sweetening" of lack of Polish independence, and this is russian term, but not Polish). Rescius called this situation: Civitatis aliquod ornamentum (and may be even less then this) - but no Polish state. Do you have some lack of identity also?Jakub Szymański (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original POV essay, exemplified by the line "Yet his Pontificate came in time when Poland was in the darkness of Russian communism, but this Pope brought the country to the ‘higher place’ of Freedom." Carrite (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Dear Carrite you have some right, but with this one line "Yet his Pontificate came in time when Poland was in the darkness of Russian communism, but this Pope brought the country to the ‘higher place’ of Freedom." - I've tried to explain fulfilment of prophecy in then situation. But as for prophecy itself and recognition of its contents there are strong evidences in footnotes (if you want little longer discussion, I can explain this to you more profoundly). Besides: I can also show to you some similar lines made by other people (i.e. "POV") in other Wiki articles... Besides: this one line give 2 "verses" from 72 "verses" full text. So if you feel yourself strong, maybe you should try with this what left? Because this one (or 2) is little to little for judge whole thing... And as for "POV" - I'm always speak to malcontents: you should read the footnotes. And personaly I speak to you: you already forgot, how it was in history?

And as for this one line, you could very easy read recent footnote 29 (i.e. interview with Mr Ascherson...) besides many others, which are in cited books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jakub S.: Stop badgering people. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

Dear Carrite, I find any pleasure in badgering people. I try just understand why they behave like they behave. So this is more philosophical matter (Socrateian you can name it). Something far above "badgering". But not everybody can catch this...Jakub Szymański (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jakub, you are not trying to "understand why they behave like they behave". That is very clear. You are making no effort whatsoever to understand Wikipedia's policies. Cut out the "you are all too stupid to understand why I am right" attitude, and try to grasp that Wikipedia has certain rules on how to write an article and it is highly unlikely that you were born with the innate knowledge of how to do it. The quickest way to learn how to do it is to listen, really listen, to the advice and criticism offered to you. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański

My dear friend DeCausa. First of all... Your supposition about "attitude" is not very in target... I'm not try to prove that people are "stupid". In fact I think that every human being have his own dignity... But, it is worthy listening to the other people, such like in this case... Because in words, used by you, you yourself probably revealed your very own "problems/complexes". If you feel yourself "stupid" - I think that You shouldn't. Because I think that inteligence you have and hunger for the knowledge and personal development. So you be calm and happy. Everything will be OK. Because by these yours attitudes, you are in place like Wiki, where is some mentality spirit, which attracted people with intelligence. So don't worry, you have hunger, which don't will be satisfied, till not you find mentaly, what you looking for... And this, about what you speak, should be rather understand in context, for example like... Wiki has some "gaps", because is written by people, who also had "gaps". But everybody have some "gaps". You and I also... But also I have better knowledge about something, and you have better knowledge something other. And people by that are also in richness of spirituality and mentality. I mean relations. As for "innate knowledge"... Thomas Aquinas told that only pure substances (i.e. Angels) have innate knowledge. And according to Aristotle every man is born as white page... so we all must acquire knowledge with great effort. And I assure You that My effort in acquiring knowledge in Wiki (specialy technical) was in labors. As for criticism, I'm listening... but only in frontiers of reason. Time this is not wasted, because this is goodness, which be fruitful also in researching other people. And above all I met such noble Persons like You, for example... Jakub Szymański (talk) 22:31, 25 May 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 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Martínez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX as either an amateur or professional. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Jakejr (talk) 02:56, 23 May 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 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Martyniouk[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX as either an amateur or professional and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't meet NBOX or GNG. Jakejr (talk) 22:37, 21 May 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. Despite spirited opposition to deletion by one editor, the argument for deletion that the subject is not covered in reliable third-party sources is compelling, and that's what consensus also amounts to. Can be redirected as suggested at the end at editors' discretion. Sandstein 19:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases relevant to archaeology did you check please? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is not indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index, British Humanities Index, or Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, which are the databases that, for example, the American Journal of Archeology and Medieval Archaeology (journal) are indexed in. The latter is also in the MLA International Bibliography, but I don't have access to that database so can not check it for the EJoPCA. The American Journal is also included in the ERIH list, but that one is currently not online (in the process of being transferred to a Norwegian organization) and is not very selective anyway because it basically strives for completeness. In addition to the foregoing, I also checked Scopus, which is rather inclusive (but still usually is taken as establishing notability). If you know of any selective archeology-specific databases that might be of importance here let me know and I'll check them, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established academic journal about to issue fourth volume. Reliable source for Italian archaeology. Agreed sources are not strong but it should be possible to expand it. Much content is in Italian and a search of google.it shows sources. We shouldn't discriminate against it just because it is mainly in Italian. Note WP:NJournals is an essay not a policy. (It's open access too) Philafrenzy (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should not discriminate against a journal because it is published in Italy. Neither does that mean that we should forget all notability criteria. NJournals is an essay, but it is designed to make it easier for journals to meet our notability criteria. If a journal does not meet NJournals, it almost certainly doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. The article has been tagged for lack of notability for over a month now, without any improvement forthcoming. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I have many things I want to do here. There are a million articles here that need more sources. Have you looked at the editorial board? They are not writing it and publishing it for fun are they? Those articles are being used by students and academics or it wouldn't have got to four volumes (soon). Just because it hasn't been picked up strongly by Google is no reason to delete it. The encyclopedia is better with this article than without it and more sources will appear in the fullness of time. In the meantime it remains a RS in its area. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And none of that contributes to notability. Please base your arguments in policy. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article a little. The field of post-classical (medieval or post-Roman) archaeology is relatively new (1970s on) and one thing they do in PCA is publish memoirs from the first people working in the field describing their experience of trying to gain acceptance for the area, for instance Bryan Ward-Perkins on the difference between English and Italian approaches or the first uses of the Harris matrix in the field. There are many other articles they have published on this so far in addition to regular archaeological papers. As far as I know, nobody else is publishing this sort of historiographical (archaeolographical?) material and I think there is plenty of room to plug these open access articles into the encyclopaedia further. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, publishing articles, whether interesting or not, does not contribute one iota to notability (unless it can be shown that they actually have been noted by third parties. And as the Google Scholar link above indicates, any evidence of that is lacking). As for your earlier remark that students and academics must read it otherwise it wouldn't still be around after 3-4 years, academic publishing requires patience and usually journals take more than that to prove to be viable or not. This is a bit different for an open-access journal like this, because those are "author driven", not "reader driven". Even if nobody ever reads it, such a journal will be viable as long as academics need to find an outlet for their articles (which they need to publish in order to be evaluated well for jobs, promotions , etc). So the fact that this has been around a mere 3-4 years is no indication of possible notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Bryan Ward-Perkins, Sauro Gelichi, Gian Pietro Brogiolo and Richard Hodges (the first ones I checked) are publishing there to pad their C.V.s. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable third-party sources found yet, and alternative criteria suggested in the WP:NJOURNAL essay, such as inclusion in major indexes, do not seem to have been met yet. I am unswayed by the notability of the journal's contributors; an unnotable topic shouldn't inherit notability from people associated with it. The "Wikipedia is better with it than without it" argument just falls flat for me; most of the article reads like a reviewer's opinion piece about the journal, and while that's useful (reviews of things are popular, and I read them myself!), it's not the sort of verifiable, encyclopedic coverage appropriate for Wikipedia. If it were stripped down to a stub, just parroting the uncontroversial parts of the publisher's description (with attribution), it would at least be factual, and if article inclusion policy were up to me I'd probably adjust the policy to allow it, but the policy is not up to me. Based on information available so far, this seems like the sort of topic most of the community's policies seem designed to exclude from Wikipedia. Agyle (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to delete a multi volume, peer reviewed, open access journal on archaeology with contributions from major figures in its field? How does that make any sense for the project? The policies are there to guide us, not for us to become slaves to them. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Much of the rationale behind the notability guidelines are to maintain encyclopedic integrity. With no independent sources about the topic, the article is limited to information from the publisher, and whatever unverifiable editorial content people generate, whether right or wrong. Agyle (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of an academic journal that is not included in the relevant indexes (either because it is too new or has not paid to be or for some other reason) how would you see notability being demonstrated? We know that it has survived to volume 4 and does not appear to be vanity publishing as was suggested above as it has important figures in its area editing and contributing who have no need to pad their CVs. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of a single respectable selective database that asks journals to pay for inclusion. If a journal is "too new", then that is a clear case of "too soon" and you should wait with article creation until it is actually notable, after all, WP:There is no deadline. If you read my above comments more carefully, you'll see that I did never say that this was a vanity publication. I really urge you to read up on WP's standards for sourcing and notability (and don't forget WP:NOTINHERITED), so that we can avoid having the same conversations over and over again. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, you're asking how to demonstrate notability of a publication that has attracted virtually no notice in independent published sources, has no demonstrable influence in its field, has no significant history, has received no well known awards, has made no major achievements, has been involved in no prominent scandals, has not been included in selective indexing services, and does not seem to be frequently cited in other notable scholarly publications. If I thought it were likely that notability could be demonstrated, I wouldn't have voted "delete" for now; I already considered the rationales that I can think of. I do not have access to good databases of academic journals, so I don't have a good feel for how often its cited, and might be swayed by statistics regarding this, even though it is not among the guidelines' explicit criteria. However, I am doubtful of this; usually books.google and scholar.google give some indication of third-party citation frequency even in fields they don't cover well, and they turned up nothing. Agyle (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources, which I agree are of varying quality:

http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/directory/seh43
https://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/?mode=staff&id=2722
http://www.academia.edu/6384760/Bonacchi_C._Forthcoming_2014_._Understanding_the_public_experience_of_archaeology_in_the_UK_and_Italy_a_call_for_a_sociological_movement_in_Public_Archaeology._The_European_Journal_of_Post-Classical_Archaeologies_4_2014_
http://www.sapm.mwn.de/index.php/de/direktorin/29-forschung/215-publgru
http://www.lettere.unipd.it/discant/CatMedievale/Home.html
http://lnu.se/employee/cornelius.holtorf?l=en
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:711499
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/4193528
http://archeologiamedievale.unisi.it/post-classical-archaeologies-pca
http://www.archeologiamedievale.it/2012/05/11/post-classical-archaeologies-pca-vol-2-2012/

My concern is we are looking in the wrong place as it defies common sense that a journal would get to four volumes, apparently be of a high quality, peer reviewed with notable contributors, yet be missed by every index and uncited. Is it because it is mostly in Italian? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, it absolutely does not "defy common sense" that a journal that is barely 4 years old is not yet indexed or much cited. Citations take time to build up. Databases need to review a certain number of issues of a journal before deciding on their possible inclusion. Language has not much to do with it, as many journals in the humanities are not in English. None of your "references" listed above contribute to notability (or even provide any useful info on the journal). All they show is that people list articles they published in that journal on their CV or mention that they are part of the editorial board. --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call them references, I said they were sources of mixed quality. They might meet the standard of general notability together. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they'd convince some editors, given the vast range of opinions, but they're googleable links I already considered. On your question of whether the journal's inclusion of Italian-language articles was a reason for exclusion here, I can tell you it doesn't matter to me, and Wikipedia guidelines make no distinction (all things being equal, reliable sources are preferred in English, but all languages are acceptable). It is possible that it's a factor considered by indexing services, and I'd guess it impacts the journal's readership to some extent. I checked if there was an alternate, Italian-language title for the publication, that might return more search results, but I didn't find any, even on Italian-language web pages like Archeologia Medievale. Agyle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting bias from anyone here and I am aware that we shouldn't discriminate against foreign language sources, merely that for practical reasons we might not be picking up on Italian language sources that, for instance, an Italian archaeologist would go straight to. We seem to be limited to academic indexes and Google, and I feel there is a world of web and offline sources outside those two. You could argue this is a case of systemic bias as it seems unlikely that the journal would be so un-noted if it was mainly in English. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but having read several AfD discussions about journals, all-English journals seem to face the same difficulty with third-party notability. Even after decades of publication, it seems quite common for a journal to have attracted no significant coverage in independent sources; who would write an article about the IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, except the IEEE? I'd presume that's why the essay WP:NJOURNAL was written to provide alternatives to consider in assessing notability. Most journal articles I've seen on Wikipedia, even when the consensus is that they're notable, do not expand beyond stubs. Agyle (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which means we are more or less letting the indexes choose what we include. I don't think anyone here has argued that this journal, for instance, is not a reliable source in its area and I think that should have more weight in the discussion. After all, if it is reliable, and particularly if it is open access and fully linkable, we are likely to start using it as a source as I have and ideally we would probably have an article for each reliable source? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different sort of question; in Wikipedia's meaning of "reliable source", discussed in WP:RS, "reliability of a source depends on context." For example, The New York Times is often considered a reliable source, but would not be acceptable for many medical claims, where more specialized sources are required (see WP:MEDRS). Similarly, its Op Ed section would generally not be considered a reliable source for facts, but may be considered a reliable source for statements about an author's opinions. In the case of scholarly sources: "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." Agyle (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agyle. There are a great many interesting, useful, or noble people, organizations, and other things in this world and most are not notable. This is one of them. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gian Pietro Brogiolo the EIC, where the journal is mentioned. I can sympathize with Philafrenzy's frustration at excluding verifiable, serious academic journals that are not quite notable by WP standards. Notability thresholds will always ensure that WP is a curmudgeonly, trailing edge information resource full of holes in coverage. As far as I can tell, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for the journal to appear in selective indexes or to be commented upon by independent RS. Nonetheless, uncontroversial facts, like the journal's existence and title, are verifiable in authoritative primary sources and the journal title is a plausible search term. If we had an article on SAP Società Archeologica, that would be a natural merge target, but we don't. Until the journal does become notable, a redirect to the editor in chief's article article seems the best way to preserve at least the journal's existence on WP. --Mark viking (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by MusikAnimal (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Mohan[edit]

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

created by a single purpose editor. Blatant WP:AUTOBIO. The awards may confer notability but the Thomas Jefferson Medal in Architecture doesn't look particularly special, and RIBA European Award gives awards to companies, although it didn't stop use Nick adding in Nikhil's name to the award. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 18 May 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. Appears to fail WP:N, which is not disputed Wily D 15:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, this was nominated for proposed deletion by Peacemaker67 with the following rationale:

Nothing that jumps out that would make this gent notable, no sources and only a Major (see WP:SOLDIER)

However since this article has already had a declined PROD under a different rationale (suspected hoax), it is therefore ineligible for proposed deletion. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks kelapstick, didn't realise it had already been prodded. Google Books search for "Arthur Griffiths" royal tank regiment -wikipedia -"Books, LLC" gets nine hits, all of which are null or some other joker. Google Scholar also comes up empty. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt on the basis of WP:SOLDIER, as he doesn't have the rank or decorations. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am somewhat sympathetic to having an article on this individual. Two MCs on active service are not insignificant; there is no doubt a story to tell, and he does seem to have been a pioneer of tank warfare. WP:SOLDIER isn't generally a helpful notability guideline. However, I would have expected information for when he was commissioned and promoted (from the Gazette), and where and when information for the the MCs, and the author to have checked the regimental histories for the Royal Tank Regiment, and constructed something from that. There is much to be said for writing your articles properly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 25 May 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 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Springer[edit]

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

I approved this from AfC myself on the basis that it's not too spammy, and presumably Springer meets WP:PROF due to his title as distinguised professor. However, the source for this, Weekly Science, seems like a shaky source. Springers CV doesn't list him as a distinguished professor, nor does the website of his institution. Weekly Science's "articles" section meanwhile contains one single article, and that article is the only source for the title of distinguished professor. Looking at the sources, I don't think this academic meets the general notability guideline. His t index is fairly low too. All in all, I don't think we should have an article on Springer anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I spent quite some time looking for reliable third-party references on Springer in German or English and came up empty-handed. The "distinguished Professor" reference seems to be flat-out wrong, and I see no indication that it meets our standards of reliability. Huon (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the current version of his cv on the university web site (dated April 2014 if I am interpreting the URL correctly) he is only an associate professor. I agree with Huon that the "distinguished professor" claim seems to be erroneous. So we will have to find notability elsewhere than from his title. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A GS h-index of 17 [28] is not quite enough for a highly cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 20 May 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 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Maloney[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No comment either way on notability, but if this is deleted, could Patrick Maloney (disambiguation) be moved to this page? Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but of course.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Sparring with notable fighters does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 22:29, 21 May 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. One opinion not considered due sockpuppetry j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Coigney[edit]

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

only acted for 4 years, only has 4 credits, mainly notable for being Mark Ruffalo's wife and notability isn't WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject has drawn sufficient coverage in reliable sources to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sufficient coverage? The 3 references on her article are all about her husband with just mentions of her. Which by our general notability guidelines, the subject needs "Significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Also, for Notability (people), it stays for entertainers and actors that

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - She doesn't.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - She doesn't.:
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - She doesn't. - LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Why some invest so much passion and energy in seeking deletion of the marginally notable instead of creating new content or improving existing articles has always been a puzzlement to me. - Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I improve articles IF they can be improved, (ex: Hayley Hasselhoff, Maude Apatow, Diem Brown) but if someone is only notable because of their spouse and shouldn't have their own article, then I nominate them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband. Insufficient independent notability (ie. lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources). But her brief cinema and tv career can be noted in her husband's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - agree with Candleabracadabra. -- bydand•talk 08:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Angry Young Man (film). j⚛e decker ^talk 05:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Sinha[edit]

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

Has yet to be in any films-yeah she might have an article but quite a few people will in a news outlet. This is basically just 1 line that looks too soon. Wgolf (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR as she has yet to be in any films. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well the film opened up today it looks like-still not a reason to keep it of course. Wgolf (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still fails. WP:NACTOR says multiple notable films. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on the film. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Candleabracadabra. -- bydand•talk 08:47, 18 May 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. The series is not unsourcable and under WP:NTEMP it need not receive continued coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too Sane for This World[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF: Lacks reliable sources. No reviews by nationally known critics. Etc. Brycehughes (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see, only two of the movies appear to have been made. I'm trying to clean it as we speak, although I admit that I'm a little worried about a lack of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really frustrated by this as a whole. Rotten Tomatoes has two reviews listed for the first, which definitely helps push towards notability. I did find a mini review in the SF Gate by Laura Shumaker, who is considered to be a fairly RS on the subject of autism. I know we've used her as a source in various autism related articles before. I'm not familiar with people associated with autism, but I do know her name so that kind of says something for her. (Which brings it up to 3 reviews.) Now I also found a mention of the second film in a small community newspaper. I'm kind of leery about that one, but it was written by a staff member and it is a fairly lengthy mention. I'm going to hold off in the hopes that Schmidt or other editors can work their magic. It's kind of a neutral/weak keep somewhat on my end at the moment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I think this seems good enough. Wgolf (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A serious and sober effort has been made to find evidence of notability, and even given the ridiculously low bar to jump over, this topic really doesn't clear it properly. It made a splash, once (ok, not a splash, more a quiet plop), then vanished. Sorry, but well done for trying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 18 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Iyer[edit]

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

Is the creator of at least 3 films but nothing in the references cover him in any depth. He simply fails WP:GNG with only passing mentions associated with the films. Markus1Kemp (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples:

Deccan Chronicle
Huffington Post
Business Standard
The Hindu

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources provided by NorthAmerica1000 are sufficient, subject meets WP:GNG. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NorthAmerica1000. Easily meets Notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight. WP:SNOW close as redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight and protect since it is the second AfD for this (1st AfD); will by extension also protect The Arkham Knight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham Knight[edit]

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

Unnotable character of a video game not yet released. Also, the article lacks sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight. Right now, it looks like there's nothing but fan speculation, which is more applicable to Wikia. Sourced commentary can go to the main article. If he actually becomes notable, then the page can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate; may be notable one day, or might appear in a spin-off article listing all the characters, but currently does not stand on its own. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight. It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD. The character from an unreleased game is clearly missing any sort of significant coverage so there isn't much to discuss, and a good redirect target exists so it won't be deleted. czar ♔ 05:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page as a Redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight. If the villain ever (doubt it) becomes notable enough for his own article, we can disambiguate with Arkham Knight (character). CR4ZE (t • c) 06:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is twice now in as many months that the major contributor has created an article on the subject. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arkham Knight. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and create protect I was one of the editors who nominated for deletion/redirected (can't remember) this article to the main article. This character is not inherently notable outside the context of the game. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there is nowhere near enough content for a proper article.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Knabel[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. Short article relies on one source and two external links. Fails GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played for some well known german teams. -- bydand•talk 08:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Football players have specific notability criteria WP:NFOOTY which he passes as he did play in a fully professional league. Geregen2 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY; per Geregen2. Harsh (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you appear on a major league sports team, you pass. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is this a joke of some kind? Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Giant Snowman 12:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. It would be good if the article showed evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Suttles[edit]

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

Only the BoldLife source is a reliable, independent source that is actually about the topic of the article. Others are not reliable, not independent, or contain merely a passing mention of the article's topic (or less). Because we need multiple reliable, independent sources about the topic, notability has not been established.

Additional side-notes:

Article was moved from AfC by its creator without actually being accepted
Article creator's username contains "film", and the article topic is a filmmaker TheCascadian 01:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and not sure how this works but I will add my reasons for including this article:

He is the Director of Photography on an Academy Award Nominated film. A role that is key to the films success.
The Nomination was one of the most controversial nominations in recent history for the academy awards.
His film "Red Dirt Rising" had one of the largest independent film premiere ever with over 4000 people attending.

As for responding to the additional side-notes:

I was searching online about how to get the article published and a wikipedia article explained all I had to do was move it with detailed instructions. I'm green at this and to be honest the system is quite difficult to understand.
As for my name including "film". I just want to be able to create articles about films that I enjoy. I'm confused as to why that would be an issue as film is where my interest is in contributing to wikipedia. I would also think that someone who is an avid follower of films would be a better source of info that someone interested in "Science" or "Astronomy" writing articles about "films". • JLFilm(talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JLFilm (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JLFilm,

If the nomination was indeed very controversial, it should not be difficult to find independent, reliable, third-party sources that sufficiently cover the topic. If more of those are found then the page can be included. See WP:GNG for more info.

I would also like to apologize about the confusion involved in the AfC process. Currently come changes are being discussed, but the intent is for article writers (like yourself) to wait for a review from a reviewing editor who will either accept the article and move it to the mainspace or reject the article and tell the article writer what changes need to be made. This is done to help new editors not have their pages deleted from the mainspace. Unfortunately, AfC usually gets very clogged and backlogged, so you probably were waiting awhile.

Lastly, I apologize for implying things about your username. I assumed that your username was the name of a company affiliated in some way with the article topic.

TheCascadian 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheCascadian,

I'll add more links to the article relating to the controversy now. I am assuming that is the best method as opposed to adding them here?

No offense taken, as I was just confused as to the issue with my name but your explanation makes complete sense. What I am beginning to understand is that there is not the typical admin roles and restrictions that you typically see with website and that everyone can edit and contribute equally but an emphasis is put on follow the proper procedure. That's great and such a community oriented approach. I'll be sure to research more before jumping the gun again. Thanks. JLFilm (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and add them if you like. Just make sure that if they are being used to establish notability they must be independent (no affiliation), reliable (no blogs, etc), and actually cover the topic of the article (no passing mentions, at least a decently sized paragraph about the topic.

There are admins here, but it is more that they are given additional "janitorial" privileges to block/ban users and delete pages, etc.

Lastly, when you are commenting on talk pages, it is standard to use colons to indicate who is saying what. So for example if you are the first one to comment, you use no colons. The next person who comments below them puts one colon before what they write. The next person two, etc. It just makes the formatting a lot nicer and easier to follow. (so since I am using three colons on this one, you use four on the next). Welcome to Wikipedia, btw. :) TheCascadian 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 18 May 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. The nominator suggested he would withdraw the nomination after a couple of days of article improvement. Others have since added/fixed sources and so I'm taking that work as sufficient to address at least some of the nominator's concerns and am closing this. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmer Amina Carter High School[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced since creation in 2007 and no indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as schools are generally notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by OP. I don't mind keeping the article at all. I saw it when checking on IP edits related to another article. As it was tagged unreferenced for 4+ years, "something" needed to be done. If we can close this AfD and get article improvement, I will be happy. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC) PS: I'll probably let this AfD run for a day or two, and then withdraw the nomination as a speedy keep. 04:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A public high school, extensive continuing coverage is evident from the usual searches, including 625 matching news articles at HighBeam [29]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:05, 18 May 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. TLSuda (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NIRDA[edit]

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

Possibly notable, but too promotional to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment looks like a copy violation. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like advertising to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I find it a pity that everyone was too busy to try a single Google search, nearly any one of which would have discovered the several copyvios we continue to publish until this closes. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio and overly promotionial. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 26 May 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 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of roman republic[edit]

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

This looks like someone's undergraduate essay. I tried to make it more readable, but I'm not sure how well I did. Maybe this could be beaten into shape with a lot of work, but I think the best solution is to userfy or delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:TNT Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable. Material on this subject should be in Roman republic and/or Augustus but it isn't worth merging anything into those articles, which are fairly well developed already. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above opinions. I think official Wikipedia guidelines (WP:TNT is merely an essay) preclude deletion; the AfD guidelines in WP:BEFORE say "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." However, this is a case where I think common sense should overrule the explicit guidelines. It looks like a good read, and I appreciate someone's efforts including it here, but the style is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Agyle (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Birdemic: Shock and Terror . j⚛e decker ^talk 01:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Moore[edit]

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

I cannot find enough references for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Plus, the subject is really only known for the Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie. Even the far more notable director, James Nguyen, doesn't have an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Before nominating these, I asked for comments at Talk:Birdemic: Shock and Terror#Alan Bagh and Whitney Moore.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 00:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure, but both may qualify as having a "cult following". They both starred in one of the most famous cult films of the decade. Is that the same thing as having your own cult following? I don't really know. I'd probably just redirect them to the film, but maybe other people would like to comment on the cult angle. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she winds up in other notable media, then we can give her a page. But at the moment there's just doesn't seem to be enough here to justify her own page. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the film itself. wirenote (talk) 17:50, 18 May 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 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bagh[edit]

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

I cannot find enough references for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Plus, the subject is really only known for the Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie. Even the far more notable director, James Nguyen, doesn't have an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Before nominating these, I asked for comments at Talk:Birdemic: Shock and Terror#Alan Bagh and Whitney Moore.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. If he winds up in other notable media, then we can give him a page. But at the moment there's just doesn't seem to be enough here to justify his own page. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar case as Whitney Moore. Unremarkable acting career and a lack of sourcing. wirenote (talk) 17:57, 18 May 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.

[1] ttp://www.allthekingsfools.co.uk/site/

[2] ttp://www.sixteenthcentury.org/prizes/roelker/

[3] ttp://www.cvhf.org.uk/speaker/suzannah-lipscomb/

[4] ttp://www.historyweekend.com/speaker/suzannah-lipscomb

[5] ttp://www2.wlu.edu/x35869.xml

[6] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2013/50/hidden-killers.html

[7] ttp://natgeotv.com/uk/bloody-tales-1

[8] ttp://www.randomhouse.co.uk/authors/suzannah-lipscomb

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]