Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 May	23 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 no consensus. Overall, this hinges on whether it is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO#C2, and so far there has not been an agreement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Alleyne-Johnson[edit]

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

Administrative listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 15 -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Laun chba ller 23:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Launchballer - (~~Ignoring the admin above -~~ I see no valid reason for nominating/deleting!} - AFD's aren't used as clean up solutions ~~so I suggest the previous nominator should WP:FIXIT.~~ →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the deletion review discussion cited above for why this was nominated. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I had read it hence the above comment, I put "Ignoring the admin above" because I didn't want anyone thinking I was ranting at you but I assume I've slightly offended you which I apologize for - Most certainly not my intention, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not offended. Just wanted to make sure everybody understood my (non) role in this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Review Nominator - I requested the the review of the deletion and have just written to Roy. I am pleased that the page has been restored for reconsideration. I will rebuild the page over the next couple of weeks to more accurately portray the artist. Comments on the new page as it builds up would be welcome.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Model Army (band), of which he was a member. The "Career" section of the band's article includes two sentences on Alleyne-Johnson's involvement with the group as well as his charting solo album. Despite technically meeting criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO, that demonstrates only that he "may be notable"; I'm not convinced that a standalone article is needed given the info contained within the reasonable redirect target page, and that I can find no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources for him or his solo works/performances. Gongshow talk 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update from Review nominator 08:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) - I reviewed, reformatted and updated the article today. Jamiller63 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad... but where are your sources?--Laun chba ller 15:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source - I got much of the information from sleeve notes to the latest released album. I understand that this information is considered to be a reliable source and I will note it within the article at an appropriate point. I'm learning and need to work out where it should go to ensure that it is transparent to people who view the page. Jamiller63 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets a SNG and there is enough verifiable material to have an article. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Model Army (band). He meets WP:MUSIC, but only in a purely technical capacity which I think does not meet the spirit of that guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Launchballer and RoySmith ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure what per RoySmith means in this context. My role in this AfD was purely administrative. I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 31 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) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April Jace[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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Although the subject's death has received a lot of news coverage, she is not notable outside that one event and has never been the subject of significant coverage outside the routine news reporting of her murder. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL; sadly subject has no notability beyond this. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to michael jace. if the murder itself (trial, circumstances, etc) becomes somehow separately notable from the actor, then we can break out an article on the Murder of April Jace. and of course im sorry if this sounds cold. its just how articles are done here. My heart goes out to her family.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but refocus Murder victims don't do anything notable, it's all done to them. Athletes, on the other hand, accomplish things. If the angle was flipped to lead with the accomplishments, there'd be no problem in mentioning her death at the end. I don't know a lot about what makes a notable sprinter, but I know anybody can be shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously as the creator of the article I think it is valid content. Held singularly as a sprinter, as a World Masters Athletics Championships relay gold medalist, in what will be her only attempt, she is marginally below the threshold of WP:NTRACK. Most competitors who have WP articles, many I've written, have a long history of multiple such championships. She died too young to have many attempts and obviously will not ever get any more. Then there the additional circumstances of not only being a murder victim, but murder victim allegedly by a celebrity, in Los Angeles / Hollywood (with a history of bizarre trials and verdicts), where the story is already getting plenty of TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, Extra Access E! and mainstream news coverage. I've already added some of those sources, there are plenty more. She is arguably more accomplished in advance of her murder than: Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman, Bonnie Lee Bakley, Lana Clarkson, Mary Jo Kopechne and Reeva Steenkamp, who all have articles. Both factors should add up to individual notability and justification for this article. Trackinfo (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for her track career are local track websites/blogs and not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Also, those other articles you mentioned are about people who were part of an "event [that was] highly significant, and the individual's role within it [was] a large one". While Jace's murder may one day be as significant as the ones you mentioned, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it is not appropriate to speculate as to whether or not she will receive such coverage. Lastly, as you mentioned she fails WP:NTRACK. Failing notabilty for track + failing notability for being a murder victim ≠ notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I used are among the most reliable in Masters track. I use those sources frequently and they are throughout wikipedia on many of the articles on the subject. You or anybody else has not challenged their reliability until you wish to push for this outcome here. As for coverage, forget about the future . . . "April Jace" comes up as one of the top autoselections for the word April, even the letters "apr" on google. It already has had significant coverage in major media and celebrity media. Trackinfo (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Please, never, ever, ever cite Google's autocomplete feature. It goes by popular web searches in a time period and is absolutely unsuitable in any way as a cite. Nate • (chatter) 19:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the fact that it is one of the most common searches in the world at this time is invalid information because . . . ?Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - On Monday you had to type the entire name to get it to auto-complete. Three-five years later when the trial ends it'll be the same way. What may be 'notable' now when the Nancy Graces of the world are covering it is going to be barely remembered as such by the time an Investigation Discovery/Snapped 'paint by numbers' recap of the case airs. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - You make my point exactly WP:NTEMP. The story may fade in the future, all stories do. Wikipedia notability is not temporary. She has already received significant news coverage as the victim of a celebrity murder. You can't go back and erase the fact that she has already been covered by every major network, every major newspaper and celebrity news rag. She is high on google search ranking currently because of this fact. Trackinfo (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note to Hirolovesswords: Do not go removing sources and content from an article you are already trying to attack on your assumptions of the quality of source. If you would like to challenge masterstrack.com, then let's have that discussion. I'm sure their nearly 20 year history of providing news about the subject of Masters athletics will show they are almost the de facto global source of information. Much like every major newspaper has a blog to distribute content, editor Ken Stone, a professional journalist formerly with San Diego Union-Tribune and Patch Media, uses the format for that site. Much worse, we can discuss the ethics of removing content during a debate about said content. Trackinfo (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masterstrack.com is a self-published source and can not be used as a reference on pages about any living or recently deceased person per WP:BLPSPS, regardless if the author is an expert in the field. That being said, this is not the forum for that discussion and intentionally disrupting this deletion discussion to illustrate a point is highly inappropriate. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly the disruption YOU are perpetrating with your edit war. Trackinfo (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and keep focus on the sport achievements. and then the death..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've recast the article to focus on athletics. Keep as a sports world champion. SFB 17:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sillyfolkboy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
- @Hirolovesswords: Apologies for cleaning up an article that is on my specialist topic area and making an argument to keep the article based upon notability of the topic that makes reference to previous consensus (??) SFB 19:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current format, with the notability focus on athletics, well supported by reliable sources. Nice work, SFB. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MelanieN (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Note to whoever you are, anonymously expressing concern about this: Actually, I received a note on my talk page a few days ago asking me to chime in on a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, about whether masterstrack is a reliable source or not. I ignored it since I had no opinion on the subject. The note did not mention this article, which I came across today in the course of patrolling Articles for Deletion:California. A check of my contributions today will verify this. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as athlete, not a ONEEVENT case as she is notable outside her murder. Cavarrone 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge highlights to Michael Jace. Subject is not notable per NTRACK. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although WP:NTRACK has no masters-specific guidelines, the subject was on a gold-medal 2011 world-championship relay team. This, IMO, meets #5 of the guideline; since the subject meets NTRACK, they also meet WP:VICTIM. Miniapolis 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Miniapolis. Subject is notable outside her murder, not WP:ONEEVENT ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 12:47, 31 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 Deleted per CSD A7 by FreeRangeFrog (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Chin[edit]

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

The article originally was BLP-PROD'd as having no sources. It has subsequently had one reference added, and the BLP-PROD has expired. But I'm still not satisfied. I think there needs to be a discussion on whether this article passes GNG. It certainly does not appear to given its current content. Married to someone who is notable does not mean you yourself are notable, and there is no content relating to any significance of her modelling career. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a7. Awful. -- Y not? 02:41, 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 delete a10, duplicative of other articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Rock/Alternative[edit]

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

pretty useless article with little content Staglit 20:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Holtzman[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only source is an interview, which is not an independent source. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The interview might have been a reliable source, if it was ever published, but a search of the website of the Badger Herald (which, by the way, is the student newspaper at UW-Madison, Holtzman's alma mater) indicates that the interview was not published (at least not by them). The entire article reads like an ad for Holtzman's investment business. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, article fails WP:BIO and no reliable source could be found about Michael Alston on the web.TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"' Do not Delete"' Disagree, article passes WP:BIO. Michael Alston is a photographer and owner of http://eliteclientele.com/ so I suggest you look further into this article. I did the interview and Adro is a very notable person so he deserves an article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.91.103.40 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WikiDan61 - Promo bollox should be anywhere except here!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michael Alston is the photographer credited with taking the photos of Holtzman. He is completely irrelevant to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 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 deleted by User:FreeRangeFrog per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chance Band[edit]

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

Since the initial nomination several years ago (in which no one participated), this topic is still unreferenced. There is no coverage in reliable sources, unlikely to be any, and the topic is in general not notable. Dohn joe (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable band and no evidence given of notability to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:37, 22 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 15:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western Southeast Asia[edit]

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

"WESEA" is a non-notable neologism used by some small militant outfits.

The article has only one reference that actually mentions "WESEA", and even that reference does not support the assertion that this term refers to Seven Sister States + Bhutan + parts of Bengal.
Much of the content is mostly copy-paste from Northeast India, Seven Sister States or related articles.
The map and the sections like "Political Divisions", "Demographics" etc. simply state the facts/date for Northeast India region.
While there are a lot of Google hits and book mentions for the term WESEA, these are about the regions in Southeast Asia (Myanmar/Thailand), not the region described in this article.

I don't support a redirect to Northeast India, since the Google Books search results indicate that in the mainstream sources, the term "Western Southeast Asia" is used to describe parts of the ASEAN region, not parts of India. utcursch | talk 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete term is little used for east Bengal etc., i.e. it lacks notability under WP:GNG for this meaning, and is quite ambiguous. --Bejnar (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be-diversity[edit]

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

Contested prod. New neologism unveiled less than 48 hours ago (as of time this AfD was created). No independent coverage found, no outside references in the article. --Finngall ^talk 14:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having some real difficulty even understanding what this page is about. "Why to be normal?" I guess this was either translated or written by non-native speaker. Whatever it's about, it does not seem notable. Created a bit too soon by an enthusiastic fan, probably. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism with no chance of growth any time soon. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism without outside coverage. 舎利弗 (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABOUT Be-diversity (The process of the creation of Be-diversity, was starting of course several months through the department of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths College, University of London. ( IS NOT less than a month old)). The neologism is in process of entering in common use. In fact it is attributable to a distinguished University, attributable to an influential event, attributable to a renown person, and spread out to the public. It has been coined in influential Goldsmiths University of London. It is attributable to a renown event that is the international Goldsmiths symposium “Critical ways of seeing”. It is attributable to a person that is eminent like Stefano Cagol (for example, BBC, The New York Times, Rai, Huffington Post, among others, spoke about his project on climate change for Maldives Pavilion at 55 Venice Biennale). The process of entering in common use already started: in fact – as Dan Savage did with his famous neologism “santorum” – there is a process of open call reflection spread out from the web and from University. This open call started before the symposium. --Leila Mai (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still in the process of entering common use, it will be best to wait until an independent, reliable source covers it. Give it time. Wikipedia is most likely to be still around next year and the year after that. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 舎利弗 (talk) - in fact - it is a Neologism (dictionary definition: a new word). if You wait for the common use, conceptually it will – not- be a neologism anymore! At the same time, this is an - art project -, of course supported by the prominent Goldshmits University of London. ----Leila Mai (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy on neologisms. Your signature is also broken. It transcludes templates that display the current time such that it changes every time the page reloads. Please correct this. Simply place four tildes (~~~~) to sign. There's no need to do it manually, if that's what you're doing. 舎利弗 (talk) 23:27, 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 delete. No secondary sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yovisto[edit]

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

CSD G11 declined, so XfDing. Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of academic articles establishing notability [1]. I am One of Many (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Passes WP:WEBCRIT~~ per [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - every single one of those is a primary source written by at least one of the two founders. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment They are academic sources, which means that they were independently reviewed by experts in the relevant field, otherwise they would not have been published. So, they are reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reliable for the purpose of citations, sure, but that's not what we're trying to establish. We're trying to establish notability, and in that case the sources have to be independent of the subject. From WP:CORPDEPTH: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, you're correct. I have struck my !vote above, as primary sources do not establish topic notability on Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am One of Many, in addition to the independence problem, I think those are all conference proceedings, or papers from conference proceedings. While conference presentations are judged for inclusion at a conference, the associated papers are typically unedited and research unchecked by conference organizers, and receive nowhere near the scrutiny of peer-reviewed academic journal submissions. Conference papers can be sometimes be cited as reliable sources for some purposes, but they shouldn't be equated with journal articles. Agyle (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is sometimes true for conference proceedings but IEEE proceedings are often reviewed. In the Google Scholar search I linked to, it is used, discussed, or cited in hundreds of academic articles. This is how you measure notability in academia. If your work gets cited and used a lot, it is high notable. I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're using "notable" and "notability" in the generic sense above, not the Wikipedia sense; there are several metrics used in academia, and reference counts within various publication indices are often cited in measuring the importance of articles. I think the sheer number of references to a research paper in journal articles could establish notability of a person in academia by Wikipedia's WP:NACADEMICS criteria, but for organizations and products, depth of coverage is still important (WP:ORGDEPTH). I couldn't find a single independent journal article that includes the word Yovisto in more than one paragraph in the body of its text, and found only one that included it in more than one sentence, in a one-paragraph description of Yovisto:

Li, Yunjia; Wald, Mike; Wills, Gary (2012). "Applying linked data in multimedia annotations" (PDF). International Journal of Semantic Computing. 06 (03): 289–313. doi:10.1142/S1793351X12400090. ISSN 1793-351X.

I think you've overestimated the number of academic papers in any case; scholar.google.com includes many non-academic references, and if you just search for "yovisto", it also returns results for "yo visto", Spanish that might translate as "has seen" (try typing yovisto -"yo visto" in scholar.google.com to eliminate those). That knocks the occurrences down to maybe 100 independent sources; most are one-sentence mentions, many are only in the references rather than body of text, and many aren't articles at all. Ultimately, specific sources with meaningful coverage about the subject are more relevant than the google search result metrics. Agyle (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm using notability in the generic sense here. Wikipedia doesn't have adequate policies for academic and scientific areas of notability in my view, so my appeal is to common sense notability. One criterion we can use is whether something is widely recognized in a specific scientific discipline. This can be hard to determine, but citations are one indicator. The fact that "yo visto" also comes up in Scholar searches complicates this kind of simple estimate, I agree, but Yovisto still seems to be cited a number of times, maybe 100 more or less, but I haven't counted. So, when I ask myself whether an encyclopaedia should have an article on Yovisto, I have to answer yes from a scientific notability perspective. I am One of Many (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Scholar.google.com returns significant coverage in several non-peer-reviewed conference proceedings, but they are written by Yovisto creators H. Sack and/or J. Waitelonis, and so are not independent. I confess I did not check every scholar.google result that contains the word Yovisto, as I don't have easy access to most of them, but I will follow this page, and may change my position based on newly proposed independent reliable sources with significant coverage that I overlooked. Agyle (talk) 05:53, 17 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 13:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, plenty of sources, but absolutely zero that are independent of the site founders. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, All of these sources were written by people close to the organization itself. I cant find any third-party sources that independently attribute notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:55, 31 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 discussion herein is split between redirection and article retention. Ultimately, there's no consensus here. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheek to Cheek (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Album has been pushed several times, with no release date currently set. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lady Gaga or Tony Bennett until more information is known. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Bennett for now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eh. I was going to close this as redirect, but have you looked at the article? It has multiple reliable sources that discuss multiple aspects of the album (release and pushed back dates, and so on). The major counterargument I could see would be that the sources cover more of their collaboration than the album, but that would mean that their collaboration had the potential of independent notability anyway. Moreover, this would be a merge rather than a redirect because the article's been maintained quite nicely (kudos to whomever). But this belies the point that the article topic does meet the GNG with the current sourcing and doesn't raise any red flags otherwise. Not being released is not a disqualifier, and the linked WP:NALBUMS says so itself. I don't know what points the nom thinks the album fails, but it's going to need more than a vague wave. The proposed merge target, Bennett, could use some merging of basic details regardless of how this AfD closes. czar ♔ 00:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting these sources that bring the topic past the GNG in direct coverage: [7][8][9] czar ♔ 16:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per the comments of users IndianBio and XXSNUGGUMSXX. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merge to either artist wouldn't make sense. A redirect would lose sourced content. If there's nothing more on this in say 6 months we could revisit it but for now probably best to leave it and see how it develops. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merge to either page would be impractical given their already hefty length. I'd say GNG is met as it stands, but even while the article is small it is likely to expand out, making deleting a redundant step. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:41, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pacific Production[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of lack of sources suggesting notability. Google results were a bit odd. When I searched on "Prashant Passy Pilley" I got "about 28,900" yet when I clicked through I ended up with 27. See also the Bing search: [10]. He worked on Supernatural, but [11] lists him as just one of many, working on 2 episodes.

AAs for the production company, I also failed to find sources that suggest it meets WP:ORG, I did find them advertising on a free site several years ago. [12] If you look at [13] they claim to be working on Bond 24, but A search for "Bond 24" and "Western Pacific Production" turns up only that web page. Ditto the claim to be working with Tim Conrad (not Conrade) Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pacific Production : Delete – The current situation of this company and the article seems to be limited with the facebook, justdial, and other online registrations. There is nothing notable about it. There are some stuff on net, adding that there will be some scope if their claims are correct, so the article can be created in future if any of these claims happen to be true. OccultZone (Talk) 13:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prashant Passy Pilley : Delete – Although I could see more than 80,000 results concerning this name. After my discussion with Dougweller I have made a study on this subject. There is hardly anything notable about the subject. 99% of the content comes from the blog of the person, it can be considered as promotional. There is only one good source that would indicate the importance of this person,[14], but that is about some 'upcoming' project. OccultZone (Talk) 14:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 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. Other than [15], there aren't any articles with significant coverage of her. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Griffeth[edit]

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

Subject fails notability test for Rugby Union (see: WP:NRU - Point 4). Has not played in semi-final or above at Women's Rugby World Cup Grousehouse (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. Griffeth meets rugby notability test point one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines since she participated in two high performance unions: the US Women's National 15s and the Hong Kong Women's Sevens international tournament. (Note: What is unsettling, and a sign of possible discrimination against women in the Wikipedia rules, is that an addendum to the note indicates that men rugby players qualify if they simply play for one of the teams on the list of high performance union countries, including the United States. There is no IRB list for women; why not? Women compete internationally at the highest levels each year and not just every four years at the World Cup. Why is there no parallel to rule one for women athletes? This appears discriminatory.) Griffeth represented the United States in competitions against Italy and France and was voted most valuable player competing in the USA Rugby Division I Club championships when her team won in 2010. Clearly Griffeth is notable, supported by many reliable references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with above.Ima hima (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Ima hima (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Clearly meets notability test point one. The inconsistencies between gender criteria are in and of themselves notable and concerning. While revenue and participation may be greater from males, both genders have international 7s and 15s competitions, and premier national club structures. Notability criteria for one should be notability criteria for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva1964 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — Aviva1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT. Would like to point out that as it stands the subject clearly does not meet WP:NRU Point 1, as that notability criteria is only for male athletes (see Note 1 of Point 1). As men's rugby union has a significantly higher profile than women's rugby it stands to reason that they would have different criteria for notability on Wikipedia. That criteria, for women, comes under Point 4 of WP:NRU - a criteria that this athlete does not meet. Having therefore met none of the 4 points of WP:NRU the athlete is, by the definitions set out by Wikipedia, not notable. I think it is also relevant to note that it appears that this athlete has also heavily edited her own Wikipedia page. Grousehouse (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one set of notability guidelines for male athletes, and a second set for female athletes, then this is an example of sexual discrimination. It does not seem fair that male and female athletes are treated differently. Look at Wikipedia's rules for association football (soccer); notice how there are no distinctions made between male and female athletes; those rules are fair. So this whole "note 1 of point 1" business needs reconsideration. That Point 4 of NRU only allows specific years which seems absurd; what happens if a female athlete competes in a different year? That is unfair. Seems like the deletion is based on a very narrow reading of sexually disciminatory rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I would contend that rather than being a very narrow reading of the guidelines (as you suggest) it is the only possible reading of the guidelines as they stand; being as they are in plain English with no room for misinterpretation. Accusations of sexual discrimination are all very well but unfortunately these are the guidelines we have been presented with. Therefore it would be more pertinent to hear from you how, outside of the guidelines in question the subject is notable. I suspect you have a personal relationship with the subject, which is fine, but I suggest that you don't allow that to colour your interpretation of wikipedia's clear guidelines as to notability of rugby union players. Grousehouse (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of which guideline you choose, whether sexist or non-sexist, Griffeth is notable. Clearly she exceeds the general notability guideline: Atlantis Rugby, International Rugby Board, an entire article written about her here, here, as well as sources here, here, here, and here. According to GNG, three independent sources are needed; she is loaded with sources, clearly she is a top player from a substantial (in terms of rugby) nation, who represented her nation in matches against Italy and France. How do you explain the photo to the right, with Jamie Burke? Or do you believe all women rugby players are not notable because they are women?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unfounded accusations concerning your fellow users. I would ask that you take a moment of pause before submitting allegations such as sexism in the future. I, like many other wiki users are just trying to work within the guidelines that we have to maintain this site's integrity.

I did not say you were sexist; rather, in my view, the notability rules are sexist. There are different standards for men (point 1) and for women (point 4) which are preferential towards male rugby athletes. This is not fair. Clearly Griffeth meets the general notability guideline in my view, so when these are ignored, and a decision to delete an article is only based on the limiting sex-biased notability rules (men to the front of the bus, women to the back), it seems unfair in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on topic, in answer to your rhetorical question, of course women rugby players can be notable, and luckily we have a clear guideline to differentiate those that are or from those that aren't. The articles that you kindly listed are on the self promotional end of the spectrum, being either internal team-generated reports, or from promotional material. A simple search of the subject in Google reveals the wiki article, the subject's linkedin and very little else by way of information. The results do not have the hallmark of what an independent observer may consider a notable athlete.

To make my argument clearer I will summarise my main points for this subject's lack of notability, and therefore deletion of the article:

(a) The subject fails to meet the clear criteria for notability of rugby union players in WP:NRU. This is not disputed.

I continue to dispute it; see above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(b) A Google search of the subject does not return the type of results that one may consider to be normal for a notable athlete.

Irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(c) The articles kindly provided by Tomwsulcer (see above) are substantially team-generated material, or from niche, unverifiable locations. If the subject was indeed notable I would assume there would be some sort of impression in mainstream media.

Care to be specific? Rugby magazine is team-generated? The International Rugby Board? Vassar College? I don't see how these are team-generated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Is ESPN Scrum team generated?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(d) The article itself has very few views.

In most sources, Griffeth's contributions were discussed particularly, such as how she played, what she did, how she helped the team, so I have no idea what you're getting at here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e) The vast majority of the editing of the article has been performed by Tomsulcer (who I suspect has a personal relationship with the subject) and the subject herself. This is not in-line with what would normally be expected of a notable athlete.Grousehouse (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now who is making accusations? Stick to the rules, please; argue about facts and sources, don't make inferences about other contributors when you know nothing about them, and strive for objective impartiality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Tomwsulcer that you are now adding photos of the subject to the Women's rugby union and Women's international rugby union pages. Is there a reason for this? It seems odd to single out a particular player who appears to be an intermittent player for a minor rugby nation at best, in this way.Grousehouse (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object to photos of women athletes in Wikipedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I object to someone cynically attempting to inflate the notability of the subject of an article that is currently in dispute.Grousehouse (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal smears such as "cynically attempting". You argue Griffeth is not notable. I argue she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise of course if that was not your intention but I thought your actions (putting individual headshots of a not particularly prominent player on the wider articles concerning the sport i.e Women's rugby union and Women's international rugby union) were notable considering that they occurred after the proposal to delete her page. Is it that you believe she is one of the greatest players in the history of the sport (as that is usually the standard for individual, named photographs on such articles for other sports)? If so, I would be interested to hear how that is the case. If not, especially with reference to the timing of the additions to these articles, the only conclusion would be that you were adding the photographs for other purposes.Grousehouse (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You and I are battling about an article. This happens. It is what makes Wikipedia great (my POV). I respect your view; I hope you respect mine. I have handyman work so I am bidding adieu at present.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've just gone over each and every reference in the article, and contrary to Tomwsulcer's assertion, they do not satisfy the GNG. The GNG, as I'm sure folks know, require that sources be independent, reliable, published, third-party sources with an acknowledged reputation for fact-checking. Collegiate publications such as Vassar College's website are not generally held to qualify. While I expect that neither would websites like rugbyrugby.com and erugbynews.com, we don't even need to go that far -- all the rugby publications, web or otherwise, cited in the article are match reports or routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:N. In almost every case they mention the subject only in passing, instead of in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Perhaps a section devoted to her on the national team website would count towards notability, but the subject no longer seems to be on the national team; the link in the article is broken, and having just looked at the national team roster, she's not there.
As far as discrimination goes, the purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not. In particular, the underpinning of the NSPORTS subordinate notability criteria is that those who meet it should be able to pass the General Notability Guideline ... and theoretically must do if challenged, even if the SNG is met. That different sports have differing notability criteria is plain common sense; collegiate-level play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, minor league play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, and women's competition is highly notable in some sports and not in others. We cannot and must not decide notability criteria on the grounds of social engineering; we must decide it based on what the world chooses to take note.
In this particular case, however much Griffeth and some SPAs wish to save the article, she doesn't pass the GNG, not remotely close. I just did a Google News search [16], and there is only one news hit for Griffeth -- this Wikipedia article. That's just not notable, period. (I admit I'm also concerned with the SPAs coming out of nowhere to vote 'Keep,' and I hope and trust the closing admin properly discounts them.) Ravenswing 16:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Rugby Mag, erugbynews, International Rugby Board are all reliable sources, independent, third-party; Vassar College's magazine has fact-checkers and was proud enough of Griffeth's accomplishments to devote an entire article to her. There are sixteen (16) sources in total. Rugby is a male-dominated sport, the same way that Wikipedia is a male-dominated medium, and the notability rules for rugby players are highly skewed to favor male rugby players. In essence, what you and the rugby-rule-writers are saying, in effect, is that women rugby players are not notable. This seems unfair. Now, check out the following American male rugby players who have only 1 reference (a primary source usually, just a few lines each for each article, but who, BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN and happened to play in the "right" (according to Wikipedia) competitions, have Wikipedia pages which are unchallenged: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker, etc etc. Is this fair? It is not fair. The rules need rethinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, what is your basis for your assertion that those sources meet the standards of WP:IRS, and what is your basis for your assertion that Vassar College's magazine has a reputation for fact-checking? For a second thing, your continued attempt to turn this into a sexism issue is uncivil, and forms no part of Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The issue here is whether the subject meets the standards of the GNG. She doesn't. Whether the sporting world is sexist for not caring much about women's rugby is another matter altogether, but one outside of Wikipedia's scope to remedy; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the things about the world you don't like. Beyond that, I observe from your contributions list that you've been involved in several AfDs over the years, so of course you know that we can only rule on whether an article meets Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

As far as your laundry list of articles of male rugby players which don't pass muster, by all means file prods or AfDs on those for which you can't find references after a reasonable search. You won't hear any objections from me. Ravenswing 05:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: possibly the reason your supposedly extremely thorough well-researched google search came up with only one hit: you spelled her name "Valerie Griffeth". Try "Val Griffeth". Click on this. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I expect the reason why my Google News search turned up only the Wikipedia article was that I did a Google News search, instead of the promiscuous Google hit search you attempted, which turns up not a single mainstream media item -- nothing but rugby websites, rugby blogs and the occasional Linkedin page. (You would've figured that out if you'd clicked my link, which I gather you didn't.) But sure, why not, here's a Google News search for "Val Griffeth" [17] ... the same solitary hit, of the same Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 06:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does fail point 4 of NRU and the rest of NRU are aimed at mens rugby. I think we have to take this a written for the moment, as was pointed above it is not Wikipedia's role to enforce gender equality. Regarding GNG, The majority of sources are primary or mostly rugby related and not the independent 3rd party sources we would come to expect for it to fulfil GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. People have been going back and forth about things, and perhaps at this time we could step back a bit, take a look at things, and see what we agree about. First, I'll accept that Griffeth fails to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline for rugby sports point 4 because she didn't play in those tournaments for the specified years. Further, I'll accept that discussion about sex-bias and so forth is irrelevant and off topic (and perhaps this was somewhat my doing, my apologies), that is, let's stick to the rules. Second, the Wikipedia notability guideline for sports says:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
— Wikipedia notability (sports) see top of page; "or" bolded by tws.

Accordingly, a player can qualify by meeting point 4 or by the general notability guideline. (I bolded the word "or" both times for emphasis, btw.) I think we agree about this. Third, the question is then, does Valerie Griffeth meet the general notability guideline? It says:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
— general notability guideline

Clearly there are multiple sources; clearly they are verifiable since we can click on the links; these issues are not disputed (I assume). I think we agree the sources are independent of the subject, that is, Griffeth does not own them, they are not public relations vehicles or subservient to Griffeth in any way. The question before us, then, is are the sources reliable? I argue that they are valid since they are accepted extensively throughout Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Erugbynews. Griffeth's playing was discussed prominently here and here and here and here. Is this a reliable source? Consider that Erugbynews is used as a reliable source for the following rugby-related articles: Curtis Cunz, Kevn Dalzell, Dave Hodges, Nik Witkowski, Dan Power. It is used to reference [Princeton Rugby as well as Division 1-A Rugby, and references the United States national rugby union team, as well as BYU men's rugby. It is accepted for all of these articles; it should be accepted as a reference for Valerie Griffeth as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Rugby Magazine. Griffeth's playing is discussed prominently here and here and here. Is it a reliable source? I argue it is, because it is used as a reference for numerous rugby players, including Daryl Howland, Phil Thiel, Todd Clever, Alexander Magleby, Maka Unufe, Peter Tiberio, Zack Test, Al Caravelli, Zachary Pangelinan, the Utah Warriors,as well as Rugby coach Matt Sherman. It references the Boston Thirteens. It is considered a reliable source for the article Rugby union in the United States. It is the only source for 2013 Collegiate Rugby Championship. It is a main source for Allied Rugby Conference, for Rugby union in New Zealand, for USA Rugby Elite Cup. It is acceptable as a reference for one of my fellow fraternity brothers, a rugby player who died on board the doomed United Airlines flight during 9/11 while fighting to regain control of the cockpit, Jeremy Glick; it crashed in Pennsylvania with Jeremy trying to use his rugby skills to defeat the terrorists.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are other references which I continue to argue are valid:Vassar magazine, Vassar athletic news. A prominent college such as Vassar would be highly reluctant to print a story about one of its alumni athletes without checking the facts. Further, the International Rugby Board is an excellent source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In sum, Griffeth meets the general notability guideline by having multiple (13), independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Accordingly, I argue that Griffeth is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're still getting the GNG wrong, and it's not as if it hasn't been pointed out to you: the GNG requires that a source involve ""Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail" -- it's the very first clause of the rule -- and the accompanying footnote cites a multi-hundred page book as an example of a substantive treatment, and a one-sentence reference as "plainly trivial." Let's look at the cites you claim discuss Griffeth's play "prominently."
Her sole mention in the first source (other than a quote from her, something that's explicitly debarred from supporting notability of her) is "Having showed her ability to let loose her backs for the U23s, Griffeth, who will have outside her some exciting attackers like Ashley Farmer, Tasha Mannino, Jen Sinkler, and Lindsay Davidson."
Her sole mentions in the second source are "Val Griffeth kicked her first conversion of the day for a 22-7 lead," and "But Griffeth’s penalty goal in the 37th minute sealed the game."
Her sole mention in the third source is in the list of a game-day roster.
Her sole mentions in the fourth source are "The ball was spun out to flyhalf Val Griffeth, and her backs linked up with fullback Christine Herrmann, who was steaming into the backline at full pace," and "Griffeth converted for the 7-0 lead."
Her sole mention in the fifth source is "... Val Griffeth, Katie Lorenz and Amy Naber have cycled through USA 7s coach Ric Suggitt’s team."
Her sole mention in the sixth source is "... a nifty interplay between Anderson, Ashley Kmiecik and Val Griffeth led to Griffeth going over in the corner."
Her sole mention in the seventh source is "The ball then worked out to replacement center Val Griffeth, who dotted down the final try of the game."
These are all trivial mentions that are explicitly disallowed in the GNG, even if they were from the mainstream media, and even if they weren't separately disallowed as routine sports coverage, as per WP:ROUTINE. That you characterize such sources as meeting the GNG suggests that your judgment as to the GNG is flawed.
Beyond that, you make two key errors. There is a distinct and explicit difference between a source used to bolster or verify an assertion in an article, and a source which qualifies to establish the notability of the subject. The second is a significantly higher bar than the former. Dedicated rugby websites can certainly be used for the former, and there is no reason to challenge their stipulation (for instance) that the subject played for suchandsuch a team on suchandsuch a date. They just do not satisfy the GNG.
The second key error is in substituting suppositions for fact. You say that you believe that Vassar College's sports publications would be "highly reluctant" to publish information about their alumni without checking the facts. What is your proof of this? (Having been both a sportswriter and a editor for my university newspaper, I can attest that this is nothing anyone can take for granted.) You claim that the International Rugby Board is an "excellent" source. What is your proof of this? What secondary, reliable sources state so? Ravenswing 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly reviewing, we agree the general notability guideline applies; we agree Erugbynews and Rugby Mag are reliable sources, independent of the subject, and secondary. We disagree about whether coverage of Griffeth is trivial or significant, about the reliability of Vassar's newspaper The Miscellany News, and about whether rugby-related news sources or whether mainstream news sources are needed. Is this correct? I am trying to see where our debate is, assuming good faith for all of us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, coverage. Griffeth is a national-caliber rugby athlete, chosen by the United States, to play for its national women's rugby team against other national teams, such as Italy, France, and England. She competed internationally. This alone, in my view, is a substantial accomplishment. Few women rugby players win spots on any national team. These matches were broadcast live on cable television channels worldwide and streamed via the Internet. Further, the coverage is substantial: the seven media sources in Rugby Magazine and ERugbynews do not merely mention Griffeth's name but go into specific detail about which positions she played, how she played, what goals she scored, how she contributed to overall team play. The combined result of these numerous descriptions is a picture of a hard-driving flyhalf which meet the "Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail" requirement. When is playing for the United States women's rugby team, against Italy or France or England, trivial or routine? As you point out, one source says "Griffeth’s penalty goal in the 37th minute sealed the game"; if we focus on length, yes it is a sentence or two long, but if we focus on meaning, it said that Griffeth's penalty goal won the game. This is an impressive accomplishment. In addition, Griffeth earned substantial coverage, an entire article written about her rugby career, as well as additional coverage here but for this, we need to deal with the issue of whether Vassar's newspaper sources are reliable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that Vassar's Miscellany News is reliable for the following reasons. First, Vassar College is a prominent US college, 13th best private liberal arts (according to US News), with a reputation for academic integrity. It's Miscellany News has been published since 1866. This can be confirmed by looking at the Volume Number CXXXVIII on the masthead, that is, it is in its 138th year of publication. This is a considerable track record for a collegiate publication. Since 1914, it has been published weekly; in 2014, it averages 20 pages in length, with archives, online editions. It won the National Pacemaker Awards twice. Pacemaker Awards are the college-level equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. Further, it is associated with Vassar College; if it published sloppy or unchecked work, it could subject the entire school as well as the paper for scandal. My point is there is considerable pressure to get facts right. Clearly Miscellany News is accepted as a reliable source in numerous Wikipedia articles, including Norris Houghton, Can You Hear Their Voices, Cushing House, Roger Katan, Paper Planes, Need-blind admission, Ernest Psichari, Indiana Jones (note: a Vassar professor was rumored as a prototype for Spielberg's character), Madder Rose, Mike D (a rapper), Carl Blegen, and elsewhere. Past editors have become prominent authors such as Melissa Walker. Accordingly, when Vassar's newspaper publishes an entire 500+ word article on Griffeth complete with photo, it is reasonable we can trust it -- an in-depth portrait -- which clearly meets Wikipedia's requirement for coverage in depth. The headline: Griffeth won a spot on the US women's national rugby team. Was this mistaken? It was right. The Miscellany News and Vassar believed Griffeth was notable enough to devote an entire article to her substantial achievement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A third (possible) disagreement is whether rugby-related news sources, such as Erugbynews and Rugby Magazine are sufficient, or whether mainstream sources are needed. I see rugby as a niche area; accordingly, it seems reasonable that niche publications, specializing in rugby, would have the most accurate information about a rugby player. If the article was about a poker player, we should expect poker-related journals and magazines; if about a jazz musician, jazz-related papers and journals. This merely seems reasonable to me. This is the pattern for almost all rugby-related articles in Wikipedia. I see no requirement that a rugby player needs to have a full article in a mainstream publication such as USA Today, or a several hundred page book about them, to qualify as notable in Wikipedia. Even then, Griffeth was discussed in a mainstream sports publication, ESPN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, for these reasons, I continue to assert that Griffeth is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'll make the closing admin happy: this is the last response I'll make. AfD is a place to state a position and facts succinctly, not to start giant filibusters. Moving on, it's striking me that your rebuttals are aimed at cherry picking things I've said instead of focusing on the simple premise of whether the subject meets the GNG. The GNG requires that the subject be discussed in significant detail in multiple reliable, independent, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact checking. It really doesn't matter whether the various rugby websites qualify as reliable sources with respect to supporting notability (which they don't) not a single one of them devotes so much as a paragraph to the subject -- including her fleeting mention in that ESPN blog -- falling well short of the "significant detail" standard. The Vassar school newspaper does, but even if you consider that to qualify (at AfD, anything much short of the Harvard Crimson has been generally considered NOT to qualify), it's only one such source.

As far as belonging to the national team goes, that confers no presumptive notability. If you scroll down the list of SNGs at WP:NSPORTS, you'll see that "Belongs to the national team" is almost never a criterion. It is, instead, playing for the senior national team at the top level of international competition, and you'll see that in most cases that's restricted to the Olympics and the world championships. Ravenswing 23:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we continue to disagree. We've made our cases. Let's let the closing admin decide. I bid farewell to you Ravenswing and the others here; in my reckoning, you qualify as notable Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Just meets WP:GNG. Don't pay too much attention to WP:NRU -- it's only a guideline to use when trying to assume GNG. Unfortunately with women's rugby coverage is just not as good as for men's, which is why the NRU criteria seem sexist (this just reflects the reality of the respective media coverage). For example I still haven't found Gill Burns' date of birth anywhere, despite the fact she captained a World Cup winning team! That would never be the case in men's rugby -- it's a real problem. -- Shudde ^talk 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've found sources which meet the GNG, splendid! Have you added them to the article? Ravenswing 04:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these things come down to press coverage, and in this case I don't think it's there for Griffeth. I acknowledge that media coverage of female rugby players is poor, and doubly-so when they're not from a recognised rugby playing country like the USA, but on the other hand we simply can't write a biography of a living person without well researched and reliable sources to base that off of. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 31 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. Huon (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Qaidi[edit]

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

After a quick Google-search, I couln't find anything about this movie, except a) YouTube b) IMDb c) Streaming/Downloading-sites. Nothing to support that the film is notable. The only references in the article is IMDb and an eBay-item of the film. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Keep: Don't know how nominator uses Google, but there is plenty stuff present. Google books also has the film mentioned in 100+ books. The film is lead actress Karishma Kapoor's debut. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Google and see :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

AND through WP:INDAFD: Plenty found: Prem Qaidi

Keep and close early per WP:SNOWBALL. Multiple available sources meet WP:NRVE, and show this topic easily meeting WP:NF. It needs some Wikilove through regular editing, but certainly not deletion. I know WP:BEFORE is recommended but not mandated, and I am wondering if there is a Wikipedia tutorial to teach how to do a proper source search before nomming. I can suggest that the nominator takes a look at WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:INDAFD before bringing any more notable Indian films to AFD for simply needing work. And while I understand why others have suggested a Speedy Keep, I cannot find that the nominator's seeming error met any SK criteria. However, SNOWBALL can and should apply per WP:OUTCOMES. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User withdraw the nomination for deletion! (t) Josve05a (c) 11:19, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick T. Moore, Jr.[edit]

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

Orphaned article, fails WP:SOLDIER IMO, although a comprehensively written biography I don't think he is all that notable Gbawden (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER by virtue of commanding the USS Saratoga (CV-60) super-carrier for a time, during the Cuban Missile Crisis though not technically in combat. The article is in need of cleanup, especially some sections which read like a memorial, and the sourcing could be improved. Ivanvector (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this passes notability for his commands, though it does need a clean-up. What's with the blob of bold text before the lead? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. The note was already included as a proper citation so there's no need for it. Usually I like to wait until an AfD runs its course before starting on cleanup but that was just too odd. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His world war 2 actions and during cuban missile crisis are notable. However article needs more clean up. Dr meetsingh Talk 14:44, 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 delete. Consensus is delete. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry merely enhances that consensus the panda ₯’ 09:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Potter(Artist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines per WP:MUSICBIO, questionable validity of references. WP:A7 removed twice by anon IP. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does meet standards. The references are valid, and it does meet notability guidelines 199.101.50.149 (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

199.101.50.149 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being more specific, it fits under "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition." 199.101.50.149 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor YouTube performer with no press coverage, no hit records. She has not won a major music competition - this means something like National Eisteddfod of Wales, BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition, American Idol, International Classical Music Awards, Grammy, Juno Award, something with a wikipedia page and/or major national press coverage, not a local radio competition for kids. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but she is #1 on ReverbNation charts. http://www.reverbnation.com/main/charts?artist_id=2743818&genre=Indie&genre_geo=Local 199.101.50.149 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that right there is an excellent point. As Colapeninsula pointed out, yes she is a youtube performer. However, she has a lot of fans, and there are many reliable sources listed as references. I'm fine with letting this article stay. In my opinion, it doesn't hurt anything to include the article in Wikipedia, no one says that people have to read it. Geekyboy90 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geekyboy90 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have inclusion criteria, and they require significant coverage in reliable sources. Having lots of fans on YouTube doesn't mean anything for notability. When she gets multiple articles written about her by professional journalists in national news sources, then she will qualify. Right now, this looks like a vanity article for someone's kid. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have suggestions to improve it? There are references that are reliable. Spacegeek31 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Not every article fits the guidelines. For instance, this article isn't up to Wikipedia standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove_Cameron. It is ok to have an article on a youtube singer. As times change, so should some policies of Wikipedia. Geekyboy90 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Wikipedia has other bad articles doesn't mean this bad article gets to stay. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And anyway, Dove Cameron meets the relevant notability guideline WP:NACTOR #1. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-yet notable performer; needs more coverage from non-trivial RS to merit inclusion. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. While she may not-yet be a notable performer, the article still provides reputable sources, and references. 75.133.232.16 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

75.133.232.16 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the references are reliable. Do you call Tunes For Tots/Make A Wish notable? She is notable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4nhrD1BtcI, and she recently did a performance for Tunes for Tots/Make A Wish. How about the Harmony Tour Phoenix, she will be in that as well https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=493434770757463&set=a.221268961307380.36571.221258384641771&type=1&relevant_count=1 Spacegeek31 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The article has references, and as others have mentioned, Wikipedia should be more lenient, if people want to read the article they will, if they don't they wont, simple as that. 199.101.50.149 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC) {{adminn[reply]

Note: I have stricken all the other Keep votes with the exception of Spacegeek31's comments. I have also protected this page for 1 week and will take further action if sockpuppetry continues. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find the type of sources which meet our notability guidelines, those new to Wikipedia guildelines may find my little guide at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable of value. I checked the usual sources + Highbeam, found a good bit on the volleyball player from the LA area of the same name, but the one Highbeam reference to the artist was just a passing mention. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 31 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 delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SightseeingToursLondon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Seems promotional and not written from a neutral point of view. Zince34' 10:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this page has revealed that it is about a company he founded at the article's talkpagearticle's talkpage. I initially tagged it for speedy but felt that I should have listed it here. Zince34' 10:57, 22 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 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Nance[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This puff piece is stuffed full of references but most are not good. His own site, shop, last.fm, youtube, blogs, a scholarship scheme, passing mentions. The closest to being reasonable is a look what this local student is doing piece in an online student news site Daily Emerald. Nothing significant. The Akademia Music Awards are not a major award, they are a pay for play award farm. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this looks promotional, the sources are not RS and content is synthetically produced. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources giving substantial coverage. The closest to a reliable source was the Guardian piece, except that was a reader review. --Rob (talk) 15:28, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skips' Story[edit]

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

Poorly written, unsourced article about a non-notable episode of a cartoon television show. Irregular Guy (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every episode for every show is notable and article doesn't show notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose that this could pass notability had it been spruced up and referenced with coverage from third-party sources, but in its current state, which is 90% (overly long) plot summary, doesn't pass notability guidelines for now. Holiday56 (talk) 04:10, 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 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Schools[edit]

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

Subject is not very notable and is very promotional. Almost qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G11. The only references are to the school's own page. cyberdog958^Talk 22:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usually I'd say keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES but per nom this is more promotional than an encyclopedic article, IMHO needs to be WP:BLOWNUP & rewritten. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It sounds more like an advertisement "The vision of Kingdom Schools is to provide the best general education environment in the Arab world. With the intention of making gold standard learning available to Saudi Arabian children of all ages." than a Wikipedia article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More of an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:22, 22 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 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Ghost Electric Show[edit]

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

Does not appear notable per WP:BAND. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this group to satisfy WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 08:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable group. Fails WP:BAND. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:21, 22 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 15:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stranger (2014)[edit]

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

Non-notable film (WP:NF). Evil saltine (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I'm actually wondering why this wasn't speedied. May I ask why so that I may be better acquainted with policy? 舎利弗 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO it didn't fall under G11 because it didn't need to be majorly rewritten to make it encylopedic/non-promotional. Evil saltine (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any WP:RS media coverage or reviews, and the article doesn't indicate any reason why this might be notable. Short films very rarely meet notability requirements, because they tend not to get press coverage unless they win a major award or involve very famous directors or actors. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Hannah Schroering Manjot Kang Fisherman Productions Prince Babba Ravi Kamboj Anandi Van der Merwe Mukul Kaushik

Delete. While unusual for a Christian faith-based film (short or not) to be shot on locations in India,[18] as a "first film" and a "short film" and using unknown child "stars", it lacks the necessary coverage to meet WP:NF. Allow undeletion or recreation if or when WP:NF is ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:07, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Healy (Irish politician)[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A former County Councillor, no more notable than any other former Councillor, can't see anything else that would make him notable. Snappy (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since my comment above, he has been re-elected as a county councillor. He is still not notbale. There are 949 local councillors in the Republic of Ireland. Are they all notable now? This one isn't. Snappy (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he's a former county councillor or a current one is actually irrelevant to the question of whether he's notable enough for an article or not. If an office is sufficiently notable, then anybody who's ever held that office is a valid article topic — notability does not extend solely to current incumbents. That said, however, county council is not an office that's notable enough to get its holders past WP:POLITICIAN, and this article is not well-referenced enough to demonstrate that he's more notable than the average county councillor. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 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 redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Split between delete and redirect. Applying delete-first-then-redirect as per jurisprudence the panda ₯’ 10:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Haugh[edit]

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

Simply running for office as a perennial candidate does not establish credibility. YouTube is not a reliable source, and very few articles mention candidate's influence in the races he has run in. Gage (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN: only 1 independent source provided and a search turns up barely routine coverage of a non-notable candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some anti-Haugh people are trying to take down his information from Wikipedia... They already removed his name and photo from the Senate election page, now they want to remove his personal page altogether? Ha! Bias, much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.196.28 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Non-notable.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLITICIAN, a candidate is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — and that goes double for a candidate whose article is sourced mainly to YouTube videos. With extremely rare exceptions, politicians qualify for articles on here in only two scenarios: (a) they've actually won election to a notable office, or (b) they were already notable enough for other things that even if you took the candidacy out of the equation entirely, they'd still qualify for an article under a different inclusion rule. It's not "anti-Haugh" to say so, either, as he doesn't have a "right" to coverage on here — our job when it comes to politicians is to keep articles about people who've actually held notable offices, not everybody who's ever run for one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not keep until November? The fact remain that Sean is a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized. I have just emailed his campaign manager asking her to send me some links to good cites so I can improve tis article as yes, the youtube videos are not good sources. Eric Cable | Talk 14:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for aspiring politicians (or aspiring anything else, either) to advertise their desire to become notable; it's a venue for neutral, third party information about people who have already cleared the notability bar. Nobody's denied that he's a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized — but being a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that earns a person an entry in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bearcat, how are you? Haven't seen you for a while. So it's the policy of Wikipedia to suppress candidates who are "Not Notable"? Eric Cable | Talk 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the policy of Wikipedia that any topic that is "not notable" (regardless of whether it's a candidate, a company, an inanimate object or whatever) is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. It's not "suppression"; it's a question of what an encyclopedia is or isn't for, and helping people who haven't already passed our inclusion rules to promote themselves in their bids to potentially do so in the future is one of those "not for" things. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this article. Sean has been a major activist in North Carolina for over a dozen years. So far I have about 20 newspaper articles about him. I ask that everyone "cool thier jets" and give me some time to improve the article. Thanks. Eric Cable | Talk 12:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Doesn't appear to reach GNG or POLITICIAN. With respect to GNG, [19] seemed plausible for meeting half of that minimum requirement, but everything else I could find (via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks, and Highbeam) was passing and/or not reliable/neutral as a source.) Additional sources welcomed, as always, and I will be happy to evaluate any sources actually provided. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually finding a lot of newspaper articles going back a dozen years. Lots of good stuff about how he spearheaded the effort to keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot in North Carolina. Eric Cable | Talk 00:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. The sourcing is horrible, and candidates themselves are generally not considered notable enough. If by some freak event he wins, then the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per Joe Decker and Lankiveil. Re-create if enough reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject can be found.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:57, 31 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 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mytrah Energy[edit]

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

Spam article--taking to AfD after the speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP (whose only other edit was to remove an advert tag from another article by the same author). --Finngall ^talk 05:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First couple of paragraphs are a direct copyvio from what my pdf reader states is the fifth page of this company report. Dolescum (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertising. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:30, 22 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. There are no strong arguments either side the panda ₯’ 10:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Agnew[edit]

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

Subject is one of over three and a half thousand victims of the Northern Ireland ethnic violence from the late sixties till recently. While every death is a tragedy, few if any are notable for an encyclopedia. The contributing editor has created dozens of articles regarding individual victims, none of them individually notable. I had speedied the three I am adding to AFD now, but that was rejected on the basis that they had "plenty of sources", but this is not the case. Some only had a few refs, and these tended to be news stories that do not confer notability.

(Note that some of these articles have already been speedied.)

The AFD for other similar articles have said there may be a possibility of a merge to other articles. While I disagree (due to the risk of "indiscriminate lists), I'll throw the suggestion out there for discussion. Dmol (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The killing is notable and adequately documented, even if the person is not otherwise notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you advise WHY you think the killing was notable.--Dmol (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There would probably have been significant coverage at the time in British and Irish newspapers, but verifying this would probably require access to hard-copy or microfilm collections of newspapers. If anyone has access to the archives of The Times or other newspapers that hide their archives behin a paywall, perhaps they could check there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eastmain, but you still have not demonstrated why these particular deaths are notable for an encyclopedia. No-one disputes that the killings made the papers at the time. But so do traffic accidents, muggings, non-terrorism related killings, missing people, etc. This does not mean that the death is in any way notable. Do you contend that all victims of the Troubles (over 3500 of them) are worthy of inclusion. If so, then we would have to add all the victims from Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If this is not the idea you want, what makes these examples different. Nothing does. They were sad tragic events that happened on an almost daily basis for thirty years.--Dmol (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Agnew's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hard to find sourcing for a notable person is not a reason for deletion. if there are sources to be found then it can be found.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, for the third time, I am asking - why do you think this killing is notable. It has nothing to do with sources or the lack of them.--Dmol (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "hard to find sourcing" is prima facie evidence against a person being notable. RomanSpa (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Murder victims are not inherently notable and no evidence of notability has yet been offered. Supporters of keeping the article have simply asserted notability, without proof. — O'Dea (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note: The article has been moved to Murder of Sydney Agnew. This murder gets lasting RS coverage many years after it happened. It had a lasting effect in leading to the abolition of jury trials for Troubles-related crimes. ("How bus driver’s death led to Diplock hearings" - News Letter; "Killing led to move that established Diplock trials" - Belfast Telegraph via HighBeam Research). Some Google Book hits also found. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the murder affected Diplock hearings, then a single sentence saying so can be added to the Diplock courts article. It does not justify a standalone article about someone not notable in himself. — O'Dea (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy on this is actually well-established: WP:VICTIM. RomanSpa (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources, it looks to me to be just over the bar for WP:VICTIM. I am One of Many (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mr Agnew is "known only in connection with a criminal event" and therefore "should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article". RomanSpa (talk) 13:36, 18 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, Guerillero | My Talk 03:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject and does not merit inclusion, per WP:VICTIM. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sparse coverage in reliable sources and nothing to suggest that he merits an article per WP:VICTIM. He was one of thousands of people killed in the conflict in Northern Ireland. Valenciano (talk) 11:31, 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 15:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Peak (Disney icon)[edit]

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

This is a completely unsourced article on the "icon" of Disney California Adventure. I don't see how this has notability independent of Grizzly River Run, the ride housed in the "icon". I considered redirecting, but I don't see this title as a plausible search term. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe a weak merge to the article on the ride if the details can be sourced. Roberticus talk 03:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some trivial mention from the Los Angeles Times, but that's about it. Does not seem to be notable. I don't think this is a likely search term, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not separately notable from the river ride. Not a credible search term so no redirect. If anything in this article were verified, it could be added to the river ride article before deletion, but at this point nothing is verified. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 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 speedily deleted by User:NawlinWiki per CSD A7 (no explanation of significance). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's 6th Grade Adventures[edit]

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

It's a nicely written article but unfortunately the topic doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Google gives 11 hits, and all of them are directly tied to the series. If there is any substantive coverage in reliable sources, please do present them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the artist well, but this school comic doesn't meet the notability guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. It'd probably be better if he went to DeviantArt. It wouldn't make him famous, but he would find a nice enough community there to help him grow as an artist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, there isn't really much to say. The article creator probably doesn't realize that we have inclusion criteria. Wikipedia should probably be more explicit about this when creating an article. There's no coverage in reliable sources that I can see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an article about a comic strip that the user who created the himself produced, and he's written an autobiography of himself as well. Zince34' 11:41, 22 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling Computer Hardware[edit]

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

Interview does not warrant a stand alone article. G S Palmer (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is more appropriate for this. I believe it falls under G1 "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" Spacegeek31 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Computer recycling. Nothing to save here. --Finngall ^talk 04:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Computer recycling or delete. It's pretty obviously a dupe of an existing article, but it might be a semi-useful redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 22 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Serious Party[edit]

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

Not a notable joke party. JDDJS (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm kind of at a loss as to why you think joke parties are inherently non-notable, but anyway. This one was actually a joke party, but that's no reason to delete it. It was registered with the Australian Electoral Commission and contested multiple elections, which is the threshold we have generally used at WP:AUP to determine notability (although we have only generally required one election). A quick Trove search reveals plenty of coverage. Frickeg (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe party seems to have filed candidates in multiple elections, which speaks to its notability. I’ve also managed to find several sources, including a brief mention by the Australia Election Committee [20] (which proves this party is not a hoax), mention by The Australian [21] and mentions in books such as “Australia: The State of Democracy” (available in Google Books). Statistics about the party have been kept in relation to wider elections, as evident by this link [22]. Overall, this just strikes me as a very minor party that nonetheless fielded candidates, won some votes and got some coverage. I don’t see any reason for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JDDJS seems to be claiming that even for a joke party the DSP was not notable. But that's just not true. It got as much notice from secondary sources as any such party ever gets — they're never the heavy focus of election coverage, but they get mentioned as part of the lighter side of the campaign. The DSP was certainly mentioned by each newspaper at least several times per election. That makes it inherently notable. If we can't come up with the exact citations, it would be because newspaper archives from that period aren't easily accessible. But I remember reading the coverage at the time. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a break. Any page that I nominated for deletion recently that does not have any delete votes and at least one keep vote can be closed as nomination withdrawn. JDDJS (talk) 14:32, 22 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. The nomination has been withdrawn per the message from the nominator (User:JDDJS) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Serious Party, which states “I am taking a break. Any page that I nominated for deletion recently that does not have any delete votes and at least one keep vote can be closed as nomination withdrawn”. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party[edit]

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

Not a notable joke party. JDDJS (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry, did you read the article? Or any of the references? This was not a joke party, it was a perfectly serious one that happened to have a funny name (and even if it was a joke party, that would have no impact on its notability). Generally within Australian politics we have considered registration with the Australian Electoral Commission and candidates for at least one election grounds for inherent notability; the LEFBP ran for two elections (2001, 2004) and easily qualifies. Frickeg (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Political parties that contest elections are inherently notable. And indeed it was noted at the time. Nothing more is required. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, party was registred with the AEC and ran candidates, which means there was a fair bit of effort and coordination involved. I'm satisfied with the coverage such as this and this that the party would meet the GNG anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 22 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. The nomination has been withdrawn per the message from the nominator (User:JDDJS) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Serious Party, which states “I am taking a break. Any page that I nominated for deletion recently that does not have any delete votes and at least one keep vote can be closed as nomination withdrawn”. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial British Conservative Party[edit]

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

Not a notable joke party. JDDJS (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an absurd nomination. This was a registered party in two separate countries (Australia and New Zealand), contested multiple elections, and has plenty of coverage (and that's just from Google, not even considering the coverage not available to us online as most of the party's activities took place in the 1980s). Frickeg (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Frickeg wrote, this is an absurd nomination. I can't speak about NZ, but in Australia during the late '70s and throughout the '80s, every time there was an election one could count on Murgatroyd getting some coverage for the IBCP. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abundant coverage in reliable sources in multiple countries. An obvious keep. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:09, 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. Sandstein 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Absurd Party[edit]

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

Not a notable political party. JDDJS (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The references supplied in the article should suffice to show that this was a notable party in its time — about as notable as any such party ever gets. That it's defunct is irrelevant; notability isn't lost by the mere passage of time. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A third party source is on the article, others can be found. 117Avenue (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existed but very briefly and although joke parties may not need to elect members to be notable, this does not appear to be notable enough to garner more than slightest passing mention in the sources (most of which are dead so hard to verify). Canuckle (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough sources and this party looks like farce.--Yacatisma (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently I created the article. I want to make clear however that I support all registered political parties in Canada having wiki pages. However, as you can see here - http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=par&document=index&lang=e&section=pol - the AAP lost it's ability to become registered, and thus, should be deleted. Nickjbor (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to add. I only support keeping historical parties if they are somehow of note. AFAIK the AAP never ran in any election, and thus, should not be included. For lack of a better definition, I'd say any party that took 1% of the vote nationwide, or, due to it's uniqueness, 1% in Quebec, or, won 1 seat, ever, should thus qualify as "notable" for historical reasons. Nickjbor (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortlived political party that was never actually registered to run candidates in any election at all, which accordingly garnered only very limited coverage that isn't substantial enough to warrant keeping a permanent article. I absolutely agree that any registered political party should be a valid article topic regardless of its degree of electoral success or failure, but that's not applicable here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 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 merge to Auckland University of Technology. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Student Movement[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. No independent refs and googling for the name isn't giving me hits with in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm While *some* NZ university student associations are notable (often due to their long history and the notable people who have been involved in them), AUT's is borderline, to say the least. I would suggest, if this article can't be expanded to show genuine notability, that this should be smerged into the AUT article, with no prejudice against it returning to an independent article if notability can be shown AND/OR(?) if it can be expanded into something more encyclopedic. I certainly wouldn't like to see this as a precedent for other NZ student association articles though - those of the country's six "old" universities would certainly have some notability, as might some others which have articles. AUT's simply hasn't been around long enough to have gained that notability yet. Grutness...wha? 04:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Auckland University of Technology seems like a snae option. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, well we jus' had a wee fall o' snae here ;) Grutness...wha? 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grutness. Merge to Auckland University of Technology without prejudice for later recreation if reliable sources can be found, and without setting a precedent for other NZ student associations.-gadfium 23:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Gadfium and Grutness. NealeFamily (talk) 06:27, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. The nomination has been withdrawn per the message from the nominator (User:JDDJS) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Serious Party, which states “I am taking a break. Any page that I nominated for deletion recently that does not have any delete votes and at least one keep vote can be closed as nomination withdrawn”. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party[edit]

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

Not a notable joke party. JDDJS (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep What are the criteria for notability of a joke political party? This party got just as much newspaper notice as most such parties ever get — a few mentions during each election campaign, as part of the lighter side of the campaign, or when they pull a particularly interesting stunt. But who has access to newspaper archives from the '80s to find the exact article references? That's not a reason to delete the article and pretend the party didn't exist or wasn't noted. The world didn't begin with the creation of online newspaper archives. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would be arguing keep anyway, but this nomination has not even attempted to address the issues from the previous AfD (which, yes, was almost ten years ago, but still raises valid points). This one, which still has a degree of name recognition, has dedicated coverage, and continues to have a degree of significance. Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons noted above, as well as the electoral reforms that occurred as a result of their registration. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:07, 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.