Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 November	16 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sources were either not reliable, or if reliable did not contain "significant" coverage. Much of the material in sources was repeated from press releases, which does not qualify as independent. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Young (singer)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted at AfD in July. This version has lots more references than the previous article but the subject still fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG. This singer still lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have also not demonstrated GNG:

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; at least part of it is a copyvio of this. No comment from me about notability/deletion/whatever just yet though, I'll look more later. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I find that this article does meet the requirements to have a Wikipedia Page based on notability. She meets more than one of the required criteria for inclusion. I noticed the page is no longer nominated for speedy deletion which I think was a just change in status. However this nomination for deletion should be reconsidered based on the points I will illustrate below:

Alex Young has qualified as per Wiki notability guidelines for musicians as stated per Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensemble

Criteria for musicians and ensembles A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

Reference number 1 on Alex Young from a notable online version of print media Hello Beautiful. Here is a link to the article From “Sesame Street” To Cee Lo’s Opening Act, Meet Songstress Alex Young

Reference number 5 the artist was selected to be recognized as retail giant Walmart's Soundcheck Risers "Next Big Thing" Walmart’s original performance series where they showcase live performances and exclusive behind-the-scenes footage from original in-studio sets all filmed exclusively and broadcast in Walmart stores nationwide. Here is a link to the published video on Walmart's site "Walmart Soundcheck Risers Alex Young".

Reference number 13 the artist was interviewed by American Teen Magazine Seventeen/CosmoGirl the link to the article in this specific reference can be found here "Meet Alex Young". Interesting enough I was also able to find another interview by the popular teen magazine Singer Alex Young talks Fashion, Beauty, and Diamonds! This second web reference should probably be included in the article as well.

Reference number 14 the artist was the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment One-on-One which broadcasts across national TV network PBS, she was interviewed by Emmy Award-winning television news anchor, and Star-Ledger columnist Steve Adubato. One-on-One with Steve Adubato, is a program that gives insight into today's world through interviews with actors, authors, journalists, CEOs, artists and educational innovators who each share their experiences and accomplishments as stated by WQXR-FM^[1]. PBS is the most prominent provider of television programs to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as Sesame Street which Alex Young was cast in for 2 seasons.

Reference number 23 the artist has become one of the most prominent representatives of style on the New York City scene she filmed a scheduled interview with model and entertainment reporter Louise Roe who was reporting for one of Amazons largest fashion retailers ShopBop^[2] while attending Fashions Night Out. Alex Young is considered a socialite and was mentioned in a press release as being in expected in attendance prior to the interview. ^[3]^[4]

A quick search on sites such as Livingly Media's Zimbio.com/StyleBistro.com which covers celebrity and entertainment news or Getty Images and AP in the fashion and celebrity section for print and online publication photos reveals photos of Alex Young on multiple red carpet events such as some of the links I will add for you below. I do think that the article needs a lot of work which I am sure the Wikipedia community will help with, but I do not think that this persons Wikipedia page qualifies for deletion. After all that is why Wikipedia exists as a community to help collaborate on different articles such as this one. Here are the Zimbio red carpet captures of Miss Young:

Alex Young attending the Jenni "JWoww" Farley Inked Magazine Cover Celebration at Kiss & Fly in New York

Alex Young arrives at the 6th Annual Primary Wave Music Pre-Grammy Party at SLS Hotel on February 11, 2012 in Beverly Hills, California.

Singer Alex Young attends the 2011 Rising Icons awards at The Bunker Club on November 15, 2011 in New York City.

Recording artist Alex Young attends the 2011 Hands for Haiti at 15 Watt Street on October 19, 2011 in New York City.

Singers Alex Young and Freddie Jackson attend the 2011 Living Legends Foundation Honors at the Highline Ballroom on February 24, 2011 in New York City.

Alex Young walks the red carpet during the Guess by Marciano and ELLE event benefiting the Susan G. Komen Foundation at the Guess Boutique on February 4, 2010 in New York City.

Recording artist Alex Young attends the VH1 Divas After-Party at One Hanson Place on September 17, 2009 in New York, New York.

Alex Young attends the 2009 VH1 Divas cocktail party on September 16, 2009 in New York City.

Alex Young has also had multiple videos in rotation on both a national and international platform through Viacoms media giants MTV & VH-1. I will do the work and add some of those links here so you can see that this artist truly is notable, this is verifiable and all of the sources are certainly reliable, not self published and independent of the artist and her label.

MTV Alex Young Government Name Music Video

MTV Asia Alex Young Government Name Music Video

MTV Africa Alex Young Government Name Music Video

LogoTV The Click List: Top 10 Videos, 03.24.11

MTV Latino Alex Young Government Name Music Video

MTV United Kingdom Alex Young Government Name Music Video

MTV Canada Alex Young Government Name Music Video

One more thing I would like to add, there are many other article on this artist, way too many to list here but by doing a good faith search on the internet it is not hard to verify this is a person of notability who certainly meets more than one of Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I should also mention that social media giant Facebook has even recognized her as a person of notability by giving her a verified facebook page which can be seen www.facebook.com/AlexYoungMusic. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc2Mari (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gene I would like to make a request of you to please reconsider and revoke your Afd nomination of Alex Young. I have added valid sources to help nullify the your original cause for nomination. Please take a moment to review the changes on the page. Thank you. Mc2Mari (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.wqxr.org/ http://www.wqxr.org/#!/hosts/. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "The Recap Fashion Night Out from NY". ShopBop.com. ShopBop.
^ "Shopbop at Fashion's Night Out: Alex Young". Shop Bop.
^ Roe, Louise. "Fashion's Night Out Live on Shopbop.com". ShopBop.

we need significant coverage in reliably published sources that are independent of the subject of the potential article. The few vaguely reliable sources dont seem to have significant coverage. anything "significant" seems to be from non reliable sources or sources that are not independent of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I don't understand how you consider sources such as Hello Beautiful, MTV, VH-1, Soul Train, ASCAP, Seventeen, PBS, HipHopDX, Billboard, MTVU, LogoTV, Examiner.com, Walmart and multiple other sources that were cited to directly verify information in the biography as non reliable. Based on Wikipedias guidelines these are all reliable, not self published and independent of the artist and her label. Many of the links if you actually took the time to click through them in the article do qualify as significant coverage and many of the articles are excessively related to this artist and her background as a musician, song-writer, dancer, philanthropist and actress. Further more as outlined in non reliable sources Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. That is what has been done here. I would appreciate non malicious tagging with doing your due diligence research. Thank you. Mc2Mari (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you do know what significant means, don't you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amazing (Alex Young album) and Crash This Party, recordings by the subject, have been added to this discussion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and delete spam. This article too much of a bloated mess of promotion and a bombardment of bad sources that we should just delete this junk. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page should not be deleted based on WP:MUSICBIO and GNG and therefore should not be deleted. The article has been edited to meet Wikipedia standards in good faith effort and has had many third party references added for verification from reliable sources. This page meets more than one of the required criteria. I would also like to ask that comments left here be thoughtful, helpful and that comments be made after good faith research to support your reason for Keep or Delete. The reason for inclusion are included below:

This artist has been Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Mc2Mari (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it clearly has NOT been edited to meet Wikipedia standards as you are using commercial promotional sites like Walmart, itunes, amazon as sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did not create the page but I did do goof faith research as you clearly have not done. I am not here to argue as you appear to hae a very hostile nature in all of your comments which are completely non constructive towards any discussion on Wikipedia. There are no longer iTunes links as references, which you clearly have not done a good faith effort of going through the edits. I am not contesting deleting of the album or the single which I also did not create. I have a right to comment on this discussion as a part of the Wikipedia community without being harrased as outlined in Wikipedia:List of policies. As a community member I have read many of Wikipedias policies in a good faith effort to understand the proper way in which Wikipedia works and in a a good faith effort to respectfully adhere to community policies. It appears that you have not read the policies regarding Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Harassment. Amazon was never used as a reference, the word Amazon.com was however linked to another wikipedia page. If that is against wikipedia policies simply explain that and do an edit to the article or discuss it in a non confrontational manner. Stating that the artist was featured as a Walmart Soundcheck Riser artist is a substantial non trivial piece of her story and Walmart's Soundcheck Risers "Next Big Thing" is Walmart’s original performance series where they showcase live performances and exclusive behind-the-scenes footage from original in-studio sets all filmed exclusively and broadcast in Walmart stores nationwide which is a separate entity of Walmart.com. If this was illustrated incorrectly in the bio simply correct it yourself based on your extensive knowledge or have a meaning conversation about how to improve it.

Above all else... even if what you said in your last comment by consensus was determined to be true about those 3 entities being commercial promotional sites, that still does not discredit the other 59 references listed. The article lists many references as wikipedia requires a page to cite sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability "whenever" possible and states they must have been published by a reputable publication which was done. It also says that any unsourced material may be challenged and removed, which you are more than welcome to do as a community member as long is it does not constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism which I couldn't help but noticed you have been accused of and involved in many conflicts. I do not wish to have that experience with you regarding this page. I would also like to ask request Wikipedia:No personal attacks against me as I do not see how it is in anyway positively contributing to the Wikipedia community. No disrespect has been intended in any of my commentary towards you and to answer you previously inflammatory question directed at me, I am very well versed in English and DO understand what the word "significant" means. I would even entertain having a healthy discussion on the term. Thank you. 68.184.234.56 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I unintentionally commented without being logged in a take responsibility for the above comment. Mc2Mari (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Let's keep it civil people (and I'm talking to both TheRedPenOfDoom and Mc2Mari here). Accusations of bad faith and snarky comments ain't needed and don't help the discussion. Also, any admin who decides to closes this when its time's up is perfectly capable of seeing what's what in the discussion and the article; there's simply no need for incessant back-and-forth arguing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wasn't arguing I was responding to TheRedPenOfDoom and requesting that he no longer engages in personal attacks, harassment and adhere to Wikipedia conduct policy. I was also responding to his comment which was untrue. If I broke a rule it wasn't intentional. Thank you for your concern Dylanfromthenorth. Mc2Mari (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel too much of the articles sourcing is from publications and material based either on paid for or "glamourised" promotion, can't seem to find much consistency in third party sources here in a significant nature. This stuff has to go, good for the gossip shows, but not for an encyclopedia. Whitewater111 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MoPacino Music[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. I can't find independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 22:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NMUSIC; article has very minimal amount of coverage in reliable sources. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just can't see enough notability at this stage. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 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. Secret ^account 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Souza[edit]

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

Non-notable run of the mill minor league player. Fails GNG--Yankees10 03:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable former minor leaguer. I found these articles, though [9], [10], [11], [12]. Alex (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second and fourth one are about as routine as it gets.--Yankees10 04:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Widlansky Principle when selecting those ones. Alex (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means.--Yankees10 04:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the protracted AfD discussion we had on Robbie Widlansky. Apparently being named in a lot of links is good enough to pass WP:GNG, even if mention the player is in a fleeting manner over and over. However, snark aside, the links I provided mention him at least somewhat in depth, they don't just give him a line like on a transaction page. But really it doesn't even matter since I voted delete anyway. Alex (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found [13], [14], [15]. They all come from the same newspaper, but some of them are quite in depth, so I'll switch my vote to Weak Keep. Alex (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, perhaps it is too soon for the subject to be considered notable per WP:GNG. Subject has received multiple trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources, but not enough sources where the subject has received significant coverage. The sources where the subject of this AfD has received significant coverage is this one from SFGate, and this one from Lodi News; the first has the subject of this AfD as the primary subject of the content, whereas the second has the subject as a secondary subject. I would say both would provide significant coverage, but these two in and of themselves do not appear to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG, yet (maybe one or two more). Subject has not played in the major league yet so fails WP:NBASEBALL. Therefore, it is my opinion that this article should be incubated by the primary content creator, and if the subject meets GNG or NBASEBALL in the future, resurrect it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't have any significant sources that would pass GNG. Wizardman 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "Widlansky principle" is probably better known as WP:BOMBARD, and the presence of a pile of low-quality references is not a good reason to keep the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:46, 15 November 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, Dea db eef 21:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mainly per WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:NSPORT. The guidelines for notability state that involvement at the major league level is presumed notable, and this player hasn't been. Although sources exist, I didn't find any reliable ones to verify notability. This player will probably become notable in the future (maybe even near future), but it's WP:TOOSOON to be an article right now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails WP:GNG, too soon. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:39, 19 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinner Mason[edit]

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

Tons of plot detail, notability concerns, and mostly unreferenced (only references being the TV episode of the excessive plot detail). Gloss 22:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up but, as I've said before, AfD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be cleaned up if they can't first establish notability. If you've found enough sources to accurately source and article about this character, by all means, share with me. But that doesn't seem to exist. Same situation as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all of which were deleted/redirected to the List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters article. Gloss 16:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey. Remember when Wikipedia was like an encyclopedia? MiracleMat (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is your comment meant to imply that this is the type of content that an encyclopedia should be keeping, or that it's the type of content that an encyclopedia shouldn't be keeping? Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots he was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gloss's concerns and examples above. Similar character articles are deleted if there are not enough sources for notability outside of the particular show; this one should be too. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:42, 12 November 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, Dea db eef 21:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically just a regurgitation of plot summaries for a fictional TV character that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Cleanup, in this case, means deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Per the WP:GNG guidelines, and the precedent examples listed by Gloss above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks sufficient sources, not notable or encyclopedic. Even real people, such as TV news reporters are not notable, much less fictional TV show characters. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Bearcat. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:12, 19 November 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)} 21:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepend[edit]

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

1 ref and its about how the company went under. I say delete, if it was 1 ref and it was about how the company just started, that'll be different. last AfD was undecided. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. Nothing urgent that needs a discussion without the AfD volunteers getting prepped. Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for lack of 3rd party references. Some references are buried in the text, but they don't fully support the statements they follow. For example, there is an Ad Age article that shows that Deepend won some award one year, but not two years. Adding to the difficulty of finding good sources, there are a number of seemingly individual web design companies using some variant on "Deepend" in their names. Finding information that is unambiguously about the company in the article is going to be difficult, as it no longer exists, but many others using the name do. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 4 November 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 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete overly promotional and lacking third party sources. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 10 November 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, Dea db eef 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Leisure Group[edit]

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

This page seems to be an ad for Apple Leisure Group. The Page for Apple Vacations was deleted just a few days ago but I guess this article which only refs the Apple Website is still up. This clearly doesn't meet notability criteria. Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: don't be so sure about 'clearly': 1 2 3 4 5 just off the top of google. More could be found. As an aside to the nom, consider using Twinkle in the future to automatically place AfD tags on articles, maint tags, CSD tags etc. Makes life much, much easier. Dea db eef 22:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be very appropriate to keep a main page for a company, and delete the ones for its subsidiaries. Like here. The Group is large enough to be notable, there are refs available, & in facts the refs used on the specific pages can many of them be added also. It might even be possible to reconstruct the more specific articles if a non-promotional editor were to work on them. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 15 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Fish[edit]

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

The last afd failed to reach consensus because during his six year spell at Cardiff City, he played a single FA Cup match. While technically meeting WP:NSPORT, there is no indication the article meets WP:GNG, so, in my opinion, it falls under the part of the WP:NSPORT lede that says: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (emphasis theirs) Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:NFOOTY as he has been a professional player for 9 years and is a 6-time national team player. The non-binding clause from category-specific notability guidelines is generally not invoked, but this isn't really a borderline case anyway. Playing at the highest level in a professional sport is pretty much always grounds for notability. Dea db eef 20:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His six appearances for the Welsh youth teams are explicitly excluded as a source of notability by WP:NSPORT. The guideline also makes it clear that it only applies to those footballers who have played in actual matches. Given that in a six year career, he played only once, then left the game entirely for six years, and is now playing in the fourth tier of Welsh football (a pyramid in which even the first tier isn't fully pro), this very clearly is a borderline case. Finally, the claim that lede of WP:NSPORT is not invoked is factually inaccurate. Just looking at the afd's listed by GiantSnowman at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa makes it clear that when relevant, this part of WP:NSPORT is regularly applied. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to delete per IJA, I thought 'senior' and 'fully professional' were interchangeable. Dea db eef 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearance a few years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, amongst others. Giant Snowman 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Technical Nfooty pass, but nothing to indicate GNG. One FPL appearance is insufficient by consensus once the majority of a players career has passed. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 17 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greenberg (soccer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last afd failed to reach consensus largely due to a lack of participation considering how long it was open. The underlying notability issues remain. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Leumit, in which he has played 4 games, is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues as a fully professional league. As long as it is, shouldn't this be a speedy keep? Even if it isn't, Greenberg has an unusual background and has received substantial coverage in the U.S. and Israel that (barely) passes GNG, as outlined in the first AfD. For what it's worth, here is a recent interview with him on Israel Sports Radio on Tel Aviv's TLV1.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Liga Leumit entry at FPL specifically says that the league was only fully pro prior to the 2008/09 season. All of Mr. Greenbergs appearances in that league were after that, so they do not qualify under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written, that date limitation appears to be applicable only to Liga Artzit. Can you point to a discussion or source that applies it to Liga Leumit? The cited sources both seem to refer to Liga Leumit as a professional league.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The time restrictions were misplaced as the result of a poorly formatted edit which I have since undone. I'm having some trouble finding the original discussion, since it dates back about three and half years (diff). I will of course post it here, if and when I find it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm willing to reconsider because he may pass WP:GNG, there may be significant coverage of him in Hebrew language media as well as the coverage of him in English language media but I can't tell at the moment and I'm not sure if it is simply routine. IJA (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no prejudice against further discussion to merge or redirect. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is pure plot, with no real-world significance. The article Ingsoc already describes the general political structure of the world of 1984, we don't need further articles for the specific fictional political parties.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Cambalachero (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge all. Nineteen Eighty-Four is the subject of extensive analysis and critcism in works such as George Orwell's 1984 and George Orwell's Guide Through Hell: A Psychological Study of 1984. The various features of the story have analogues in the real world because the story is based upon real-world politics. To propose that such famous elements of the work as the proles should become red links seems ridiculous. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect- I wrote proles why back when, it should not be a redlink, but these are not really encyclopedic topics. Renata (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind the level of coverage the book has received, these articles have WP:SNOW chance of being deleted and should not have been nominated for deletion. I think this AfD should be procedurally closed and the articles then proposed for merger in the normal way if there is still felt to be a case for merger. These topics might well be independently notable. A search for "inner party"+1984 produces hundreds of results in GBooks, for example. James500 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/keep per James500. Then discuss merger in the normal way. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. No basis for outright deletion. Merge/redirect prospects can and should then be discussed in the conventional manner.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 19 November 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 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anthony King[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball player. Never played in level above semi-pro. Being owner of semi-pro team and league would not meet notability. LionMans Account (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable minor league basketball player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor for professional basketball players per WP:NBASKETBALL (never played in a major pro league). Notwithstanding the single feature article from the Orlando Sentinel linked in the article footnotes, there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-Notable Basketball Player and non-reliable sources never played above Semi-Pro.

FIBACHINA14 (talk) 9:55 17 November 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Connors[edit]

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

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other actual accomplishments, only a few local media references and one appearance at a MLB game. Been there, done that Calton | Talk 14:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is far from sufficently notable. Mabalu (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Hartley for some good "keep" arguments in a similar deletion discussion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For passing GNG. This person seems media-savvy enough to have themselves featured in multiple newspapers in multiples cities. I do not think this person would meet Wikipedia's typical inclusion criteria for award winners because as the nominator said, the award is regional and does not get much press coverage. This person has gotten coverage, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:04, 14 November 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 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources appear to reach WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:40, 23 November 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 List of bus routes in Hong Kong. Consensus indicates that the article should not be deleted, but that it does not reach the notability threshold required for a stand alone article. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citybus Route 12[edit]

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

Prod template remover User:Oliver suggested to discuss it in the Afd page. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citybus route 12A. It is a sourced article, so is the deleted article. But editors pointed out that they are non-notable. Good afternoon (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Good afternoon (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Good afternoon (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for its own article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 13:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here was my edit summary at the time I removed the PROD: "Removed PROD: this is not a micro-stub, but a referenced article. Deletion might not be the best option, but rather a merger. A discussion should take place and gather real consensus." => I would like a merger to be considered as an option in this discussion. Olivier (talk) 23:05, 8 November 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 17:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hong Kong Island#Transport. Wikipedia isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE catalog of bus routes, but a couple of sentences in this section would probably be useful. Dea db eef 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we're not a directory - Useless redirect and nothing to merge. / OR Redirect to List of bus routes in Hong Kong if really preferred. –Davey2010 • (talk) ~~03:59, 17 November 2014~~ 8:50pm 17 Nov 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Did you take the time to look at the article? It has a decent and referenced history section. So there is definitely something to merge. Olivier (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I did look at the article and believe there's nothing to merge, If however someone wanted to Redirect/Merge to List of bus routes in Hong Kong then I guess that would be fine... –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those favoring a redirect may consider List of bus routes in Hong Kong as a target. Each entry has a "notes" section, which can accommodate some of the merged material. Olivier (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of bus routes in Hong Kong. I have detailed my rationale in the comments above. Olivier (talk) 18:42, 17 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specto Design[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Specto Design

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

Winning non-notable awards does not merit notability. Natefitz93 (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article authored by blocked WP:SPA account User:Spectodesign; more recently the Prod was contested by WP:SPA account User:Spectodesign2. The only coverage I am locating is a short piece in Health & Medicine Week ([16], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.) publicising their creation of a website. Neither this nor the industry awards indicated in the article provide sufficient evidence of notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 11:39, 15 November 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 17:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:COMPANY. I found no independent published works regarding this company, its significance, or the unsourced rewards that this article claims that they have. Northamerica1000 has also mentioned concerns regarding the user who created this article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure promotional text. I also adopt AllyD's cogent arguments. Quis separabit? 01:18, 21 November 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 23:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Brickner[edit]

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

The references seem directory information only , unless ODDEE is reliable for notability DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable per nominator and WP:NMODEL. Quis separabit? 14:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - very marginal. Anybody else? Bearian (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The resources all seem to be fashion blogs (or at least blogs that also cover fashion), and all I can find with a quick search are other blogs. I say "delete" based on the lack of significant sources. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 19 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shad Al-Sherif Pasha[edit]

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

not notable, references which don't support text, peacock, honorifics Pol098 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I had put in the article's Talk:

Article needs a great deal of attention before it's acceptable.
At present this article makes no case for its notability, contains references which don't support what is claimed (descendant of Muhammad, summa cum laude, other degrees, member of royal family). References cited mostly do not verify what is said in the text. Inclusion of flags in pointless. One reference given contains absolutely nothing beyond a logo. All these points need to be fixed, otherwise the article is best simply deleted.

[Added 16 Nov 14: I clarify that I made a point of linking this discussion and notifying all major and/or recent registered contributors.] Pol098 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's claims are cited using sources that do not specifically verify the actual claim (they merely show the name in "directory lists" of sorts) - a big WP:V concern. I found no independent sources regarding this person, or anything to satisfy WP:BIO or even WP:BASIC. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Cranberry Products (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to indicate this person is notable. Just because they are descendant of notable people does not make them notable. See also WP:BLPFAMILY. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reliability of the sources presented at this stage seems distinctly questionable. Dolescum (talk) 18:19, 18 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadora[edit]

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

Notability, Layout, Nosources Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 14:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Towns of any population, anywhere, are notable. Layout problems are not a reason for deletion. And references can be found; in fact, I did, and plugged one in at the top. This article should be cleaned up/TNT'ed, but AfD is not for cleanup. Reminder to the nominator of WP:BEFORE. Dea db eef 18:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: another ref added. We normally keep articles about inherently notable locations, no matter the quality of the article. See WP:Articles_for_deletion/Washington-Wheatley,_Kansas_City, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_hills_of_Porto_Alegre and WP:Articles for deletion/Ternopil State Medical University : Noyster (talk), 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a real place to me. It even has its own, and busy, railroad station.--Oakshade (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GEOLAND - names and populated places are inherently notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:30, 19 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dilli Ram Sharma Acharya[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to establish the notability of this person. The draft article (Draft:Dilliram_Sharma_Acharya) was not approved for the same reason, but the author ignored it and created a copy straight into the main namespace. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 8 November 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 11:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - this stub would need to be written, coded, and sourced from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 18 November 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. Nominator has withdrawn nomination as article has improved, and there are no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iné Kafe[edit]

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

I do not believe that this band has established any notability. There are no references in the article. I searched Google for references on this band and only found sites where the content was provided by the band itself. There are no secondary sources that I could find to support port the notability of this particular band. Bfpage |leave a message 11:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one of the best known Slovak bands. I'll try to improve the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so pleased you found your references. I will to withdraw my nomination for deletion if you provide one more reference. Here is the reason why I say this. The two articles that you reference are identical except one is in Czek and one is an Slavic. I am not an expert on the media in either of these two countries, but the content of these two references that you provide is identical. I do not enjoy nominating articles for deletion. I am very happy to withdraw the nomination when I can. I personally believe that an article has value on Wikipedia. Even if it only has two references. So I hope that you do your best to find just one more reference. I wish the best for your band and I hope that you become very successful.

Bfpage |leave a message 12:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have done an excellent job in bringing your article up to very high standards. I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion, and again, I hope your band is very well. I am now removing the template that appears at the top of your article.

Bfpage |leave a message 12:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are identical except that one is in Czech and the other is Slovak? - I missed that, thanks for reminding me that :) I'll add more sources. It is not my band but I know them and I know they are pretty well known in the Czech Republic/Slovakia. I'm a fan of jazz and classical music, but this might be useful for someone else. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:55, 15 November 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 Port of entry. Sandstein 09:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airport of entry[edit]

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

WP:Not a phonebook Wikipedia is not a directory listing. It would be virtually impossible to maintain this is a complete and thorough list and offers no substance being being a directory listing of airports. David Condrey ^{log talk} 10:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The article would work without the list so that's not a key consideration. The topic might be merged with port of entry and/or border checkpoint but that wouldn't be deletion. Andrew (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More towards merge because this seems to be just a special case of Port of entry where the port just so happens to be an airport. But yes, nom's concern can be addressed simply by removing the list of airports, not necessarily deletion. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This article (as mentioned above) should be merged with the Port of entry article. The article has issues; that's clearly obvious. But those concerns should be addressed instead of reaching for the "big red button". The best solution is to delete the tables per WP:NOT, and merge the remaining contents. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obvious merge to port of entry, though I think the list of airports is (as stated in the nomination) problematic. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. There is material developed in the list-section--numbers of international passengers--which is not included in, and which would enrich, corresponding List of airports by country articles. So merge that info to airports list-articles, assuming the source can be identified. E.g. List of airports in Brazil does not have number of passengers info. Other material, such as the section on "Stateless persons", currently consisting of "Some cases of statelessness have occurred in airports of entry, forcing people to stay there for an extended period. A famous case was of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an expelled Iranian who lived in the Charles de Gaulle Airport in France for approximately eighteen years after being denied entry to the country. There are two films about his story, Tombés du ciel and The Terminal.^[1] Another case is Zahra Kamalfar who lived in the Sheremetyevo International Airport for many months before getting refugee status in Canada."^[2]

^ Berczeller, Paul (2004-09-06). "The man who lost his past". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-08-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Emotional reunion for Iranian family at Vancouver airport". CBC News. 2007-03-15. Retrieved 2012-05-12.

would be appropriately merged to Port of entry article, which lacks such a section. And then Redirect probably to Port of entry. Keep the edit history in the redirect, partly for reference in extracting the number of passengers info, rather than outright deleting. And "airport of entry" is a reasonable term for users to try, so it should be kept as a redirect. --do ncr am 23:45, 17 November 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Evans[edit]

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

This individual did not actually - in the words of WP:Notability - do anything "worthy of notice". They joined the army, trained, and were killed before they even entered combat. Like unfortunately many others. If anything they only came to broader awareness due to the Band of Brothers series, and their part in the actual Easy Company has been expanded with some biographical elements without which this article would be but a few sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or possibly redirect to the BoB article. I don't see anything particularly notable about this individual; that E Co. became famous from Band of Brothers does not automatically confer notability on each of the hundreds of men who served in the unit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Millions served and were not notable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stated well above. --Molestash (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO (specifically, WP:SOLDIER). This person doesn't seem to have done anything that meets the criteria for notability, even on the military history project page. No independent sources showing notability could be found either. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - doesn't meet WP:GNG, redirect to Band of Brothers article as probably still a valid search term. Anotherclown (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Subject has received multiple insignificant mentions in multiple non-primary or secondary reliable sources, however, none appear to be significant coverage of the subject of this AfD himself, but about the organization he was a member of; therefore the subject fails WP:GNG, but can be seen as meeting WP:BIO1E. Soldier clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, not meeting any criteria set forth within it. If we go with strait WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. If we go with BIO1E, the article should be redirected to the event which the subject has received notability for (in this case being a member of Easy Company as depicted in Band of Brothers.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: with all due respect to the subject, unfortunately I don't believe this meets the site's inclusion policies, particularly WP:GNG. That said, there may be room for a redirect given that it might be a valid search term. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 15 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TransGen Times[edit]

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

Article about a web newspaper which makes no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability that would pass either WP:NMEDIA or WP:WEB. Article, further, was written by the site's own editor, a WP:COI violation. This might qualify for a Wikipedia article if proper sources supporting a proper claim of notability could be added, but it's not entitled to keep an unsourced advertisement which just asserts that it exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing is not enough for GNG. No sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources exist to satisfy the requirements in WP:NRV. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resources added - 2 verifiable resources as to existence of the newspaper have been added. --RachaelRoseLuckey (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to verify that a thing exists is not enough to entitle it to a Wikipedia article — the sources you added still fail to confirm any claim that would pass the notability criteria at WP:NMEDIA. And since you're the founder of the publication I need to advise you to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeugland Hoërskool[edit]

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

There have been no references since 2009, there is no content in the article, and no indication of its notability Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are generally notable - even if they fail GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you misunderstand WP:OUTCOMES It does not say all high schools are notable and should have a wikipedia article. All schools must meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, many high schools are able to do this, but it is obvious that not all do.

Trust me, nobody here misunderstands WP:OUTCOMES (except perhaps you). It merely illustrates a de facto consensus. I don't recall any secondary school ever being deleted at AfD. That's consensus. OUTCOMES just sums that up. And Wikipedia works on consensus, not rigid rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I AfD'd A. J. C. Jooste High School on the same grounds and the end result was a keep. See [17] Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think A. J. C. Jooste High School should have been deleted; Jeugland Hoërskool doesn't even have the "honour" of having alleged criminally abusive teachers. Nothing has been said of Jeugland, other than it exists. It seems completely arbitary to me to say that a completly non notable high school can have a wikipedia article, but a notable primary school can't (for example Hillcrest Primary School. I believe this violates the principle of no inherited notability Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable primary schools can have articles. They simply don't have the presumption of notability that secondary schools have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary schools are kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read User:Necrothesp/Secondary_schools, but I still disagree, I just don't see the point of a wikipedia article whose only purpose is to assert that a school exists, the school's own webpage can do that. Why not create the school's wikipedia article when there is something of impotance to say about the school?

This has been discussed at AfD ad infinitem. Every single secondary school article has been kept. That's consensus, whether you like it or not. And that's how we work here. I don't agree with every consensus either (although I do agree with this one), but it's pointless to go against them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are generally notable - even if they fail GNG. This is is an undisputable precedent that has been in practice for many years. AfD is not the place for individual nominators to attempt back-door changes to policies and guidelines. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More exactly,we for convenience consider them as notable, in order to avoid thousands of afds over them. The counterpart is that we redirect primary and intermediate schools almost always, without trying to make and defend separate articles on them , leading to thousands of other afds also. It's not a inclusionist-on-schools position -- it's equally a deletionist-on-schools position, and best regarded as a working compromise. I wish we had more such, and then we would only need to debate here the matters which couldn't be settled by a simple rule. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 22 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Vanek[edit]

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

This article was tagged for notability in 2012 and one tends to doubt his notability. His claim to fame is he is the scout who discovered Stan Musial - that seems very trivial. References are lacking and/or insufficient and he appears to fail both WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. I noticed that he won the "Gil Hodges Award" one year, but a search of "Ollie Vanek" and "Gil Hodges Award" on Google returns no reliable links. I did further research on the award, and it looks like it is handed out by an obscure group, so it seems more like a "Rotarian of the Year" award than anything notable. He did get an obituary, but the one I saw wasn't in depth and basically only mentioned his signing of Musial. Alex (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he doesn't appear to be known for anything other than discovering Musial, which is not enough to establish notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:03, 10 November 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 09:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I would think the guy who discovered Musial would have no trouble passing GNG. There are some sources out there ([18][19][20], but nothing that would put him over the hump. Wizardman 14:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable scout who is mentioned in depth in several notable biographies about Musial. Secret ^account 21:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONEEVENT Alex (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. F. W. H. (1947-04-26). "Hawks Find Vanek a Disciplinarian; Stickler for Try and Hustle Always". Council Bluffs Nonpareil. Council Bluffs, Iowa. p. 7. Archived from the original on 2014-11-26. Retrieved 2014-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.
2. "Ollie Vanek to Manage Omaha Cardinals". Harrisburg Telegraph. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Associated Press. 1947-01-11. p. 8. Archived from the original on 2014-11-26. Retrieved 2014-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.
3. "Scout Who Discovered Musial Dies". Associated Press. 2000-07-02. Archived from the original on 2014-11-26. Retrieved 2014-11-26.
4. Broeg, Bob (2000-07-09). "Vanek Provides An Early Assist in Musial's Career". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. St. Louis, Missouri. Archived from the original on 2014-11-26. Retrieved 2014-11-26.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ollie Vanek to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:59, 27 November 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, as requested. See WP:MERGE for the appropriate process. Andrew (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court chapel[edit]

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

My first preference was to leave this for a while, with a notability tag, for the writer to work on it. Francis is obviously putting in a lot of time on it. However, due to Francis' continual removal of the notability tag and merge tag, I think AfD is the best option. Please see my comments (and Francis' andBD2412's) on Talk:Court chapel. Both BD2412 and I were supporting a possible merge with Royal chapel and Chapel (music). My original merge proposal template, with Court chapel (disambiguation), was repeatedly removed by Francis, despite my suggestion that discussions needed a bit of time. I won't be commenting further than to add my support for a merge with Royal chapel and Chapel (music), per BD2412's comments at Talk:Court chapel, although I would also support a delete. I don't want to get further involved, receive further aggressive messages or further edit warring, which is why I won't be commenting further. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Nobody wants this deleted, not even the one who proposed it for deletion. I said thanks for the promise to stop aggresive involvement by Boleyn. Notability has been established, there's no problem there (see talk:Court chapel), so a notability tag is without object. Same for this WP:AfD... I'd propose a speedy close of this AfD, apparently it was only opened out of spite, and as said nobody wants the article deleted (so, wrong forum). Whether, once the article has passed beyond stub state, it should be merged, split (Hofkapelle may be prove to be a good candidate for that) or whatever can be discussed once the stub stage is behind us. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact this AfD listing complies completely to speedy keep #1: "The nominator (...) fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as (...) merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted" (bolding added — well, from the nomination above follows that not even the nominator proposes a deletion). Admin? Or is there any other method to set a speedy keep in motion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 15 November 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 01:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Day[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a local-market television meteorologist on a single television station; the only source being cited here is covering her in the context of having had a stalker, which would make her a WP:BLP1E at best and is probably the kind of thing we should avoid writing about on personal privacy grounds. Virtually everything else here comes off less like a real encyclopedia article, and more like a prosified résumé probably only slightly rewritten from her profile on the station's own website. I'd be willing to reconsider this if somebody can source it up to a WP:GNG-satisfying standard, but WP:JOURNALIST does not give anyone a free notability pass just because they work for a TV station. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any issues here with WP:BLPPRIVACY, but I don't see enough coverage of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. What little coverage exists is highly local. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable per WP:GNG, WP:NJOURNALIST. Quis separabit? 01:21, 21 November 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 Climate change in popular culture. The history of this article still exists, so anybody who wants to mine that for material to merge into the redirect target is certainly free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change narratives in fiction[edit]

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

Possibly a speedy delete but does not meet a criterion as far as I can tell. This list is definitely not informative or notable. NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 04:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userify While an article on the subject could be instructive, what currently exists is a small selection of works on the subject with an essay-type lead. Perhaps it could be used as notes for eventual article creation, but I don't see any other encyclopedic purpose here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Climate change in popular culture, which already covers the topic of this article in more depth. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase "in popular culture" is too vague for my taste whereas this page's title is comparatively clear. Whatever one calls it, the topic is notable, e.g. see Global Warming Literature in Climate Change: An Encyclopedia of Science and History [4 volumes]. Andrew (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Spirit suggests. Climate change narratives in fiction isn't a very likely search term but it is worth keeping the history in case some of it should be incorporated in the target article. I agree the target article's title isn't so good but then the title can be changed as a separate issue. And yes, the topic is notable. Thincat (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, as proven by the ref listed by Andrew. There are also quite a few fictional narratives of global cooling , and this would be a good place for them. We could split it later. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Climate change in popular culture as a WP:CFORK, this seems to be about the same topic. Sandstein 09:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sandstein. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 27 November 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. Michig (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Das[edit]

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

An editor with a short career, all of his credits as assistants, not lead editor Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per nom, article meets WP:A7 criteria for speedy deletion, and has been speedy deleted twice before, this new version looks just like the deleted one.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Note: I was notified of this AFD by User:Crystallizedcarbon because I had previously deleted this same article per WP:A7. My opinion has not changed -- it lacks any assertion of significance. This individual's career is non-notable as an assistant editor. Although he has one recent credit as the editor of a 2014 film -- there is, as yet, no sufficient coverage of them to establish a biography. The article fails WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:07, 15 November 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 per G12. —Swpb^talk 17:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Towelroot[edit]

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

Old enough that if it was gonna make the news, it would have, but recent enough that you'd expect it to be all over the internet. And yet, it isn't, and I see minimal coverage of it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found this, this, this and this. Oddly, as you say, its not all over the internet. That said, some notable coverage there (International Business Times for example). JT_dale^Talk~ 12:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Text and sources don't even assert, much less establish, notability, and the text is unredeemably POV. —Swpb^talk 15:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12. Bald copyvio slapped together from two sources (in tag). Dea db eef 21:29, 15 November 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. Michig (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Into The Darkness (2014)[edit]

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

Author removed prod, unremarkable future film with no notability whatsoever. Dea db eef 04:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source is provided. Looks to be a vanity article by a WP:SPA. The editor also created a second article "Into the Darkness (2015 Film)" which has been changed into a redirect that could go as well. MarnetteD|Talk 05:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedied this if I'd got there first. Just promoting a not-yet-released film Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced promotion. There should be a speedy category for these. Note to the nominator: try waiting half a day or so before prod'ing – many of these SPA's never come back after that, so AfD can be avoided. —Swpb^talk 15:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being far too premature for a film (if ever), and possible WP:COI as the article's creator BatVanM may be the purported filmmaker Van Morgan.[21] There is someone (possibly a minor) using the name "Van Morgan" who purports to have a production company called "Explosion Productions", but neither the person, the company, nor the planned film are verifiable. This makes any article making unsourced assertions about that named person speediable as a WP:BLP violation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I honestly can't find anything to show that this as-of-yet-unmade film passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL - "The release date is claimed to be released in summer of 2015" doesn't fill me with any confidence, I'm also getting the feeling this was set up by someone affiliated with the film. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callie Cameron[edit]

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

Her credits seem a bit too thin to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find where her roles have been substantial enough to warrant an entry at this point in time. Despite the claims made in her IMDb profile, I can't really find any coverage for her at this point in time. I think it's just a little WP:TOOSOON for an entry right now. 11:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC) This vote was added by User:Tokyogirl79 without signing their name

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 8 November 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 04:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better coverage was found, I had no success finding sources that would reach WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 22 November 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Parade[edit]

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

Stub article about a nondescript road in Australia... no sources Onel5969 (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 13:46, 8 November 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 04:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:05, 19 November 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 01:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koto Jazz[edit]

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

A genre term that seems to be the invention of Chris Kenji Beer, and as far as I can tell, is only used by Beer. According to the articles cited, he insists it is different from jazz koto. The article supplies two reasonably significant RS about Beer (the other two are not significant), which could be used to argue the notability of Beer, but for the term to be notable as a music style or genre, it would have to be shown to be used by more than one musician. That I cannot find. Note that the creator of the page is Cbeer (talk · contribs), which makes one suspect this may be self-promotion. Michitaro (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) There appear to be competing ideas with this concept including the concept advanced by Beer in the article and event notices like this one from The Stranger, an Album name with koto performer Yonekawa Toshiko, and possibly this article describing some jazz and koto fusions. What I'm not seeing is any sources that provide commentary or exploration about Koto Jazz as a broader concept or evolution. In particular, this name does not seem to have any general use. On that basis, I'm not seeing sufficient notability here because the dots aren't connected and we can't engage in synthesis. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 13:09, 8 November 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 04:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per I JethroBT's analysis. If Beer is notable and an article is later created about him, perhaps this can be redirected there, but for the time being this (as opposed to the general concept of jazz and Japanese music) has not been discussed enough in RS's. Everymorning talk to me 04:53, 15 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Savers[edit]

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

Article tagged with issue for over 2 years. No third-party sources to show notability, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neglected non-notable article. — Wylie pedia 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Didn't this used to be pretty popular? I never watched it, but I've heard of it. I found a few mentions, some of them admittedly a bit trivial: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I'm pretty sure there's more coverage out there, but I'm tired to trying to refine my searches to avoid all the spam, blogs, and irrelevant hits. Searching for screensavers techtv -blogspot.com -wordpress.com -viewtopic -torrent seems to help, but it's still a chore to slog through all the crap. For anyone who wants to try to find more sources, I suggest PC Magazine, PC World, CNET, Wired.com, The New York Times, and Ars Technica. These are the sites that I usually go to when I search for notability for tech-related topics. Maybe someone can find a few hits that I missed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though off the air 10 years now (making it slightly harder to source), it ran for seven years and was a popular TV series.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not kept based on popularity(WP:POPULARITY), but reliable sources. All the ones provided are passing mentions, mostly about the ending of Tech TV, not the actual show.--Otterathome (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its not about popularity, but this show is notable[31] (one of many articles that can be found, for editors so inclined), you do not claim it was not in the nomination, I noted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am happy with the sfgate reference. If someone found 1-2 more sources which reviewed the subject of this article then I would !vote keep, but right now, this fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 14 November 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 04:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highlight show on TechTV; notability is not lost over time. Even killing all the segment and fan-cruft, a good stub is still formed from all of this. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 16 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blac Haze[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No depth of coverage in independent sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A couple of appearances on the Hot Rap Singles chart might be evidence of notability, and his first album did receive a cursory AllMusic review. He also seems to have been the subject of some "Tupac is alive" conspiracy theories. However I can't find any substantial WP:RS coverage that would help him meet WP:GNG. The article itself states "Little is known about the rapper because of the lack of publicity." Camerafiend (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A couple of appearances on the Hot Rap Singles chart is evidence of notability, and the AllMusic review of Res-Sa-Rec-Shun is also notable as well, it's insanity to delete such a well-sourced article as this, and all the work I've put into it would go to waste, plus, it's just began after being a long deleted article for years. It just needs improvement, that's all. Please keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozo33 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't well sourced though. There isn't a single reference to a reliable secondary source. Camerafiend (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do note however that the article can probably be userfied in the event that this discussion closes as delete. This would allow you to continue working on it if you think it can be improved. Camerafiend (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the reception of Res-Sa-Rec-Shun is added? Then will you feel like keeping this article? Bozo33 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reprinting a review, verbatim, from a non-notable website (with insightful prose like "The verse is dope and it's about smoking and drinking.") does not address my concerns at all. There are still zero references to reliable, independent sources. Camerafiend (talk) 15:53, 19 November 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 03:55, 7 November 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 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The subject and his works should be distinguished from Shakur's - and it should be noted as in the article that he does sound like him. 71.82.112.43 (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Camerafiend, that is about the album So Much Drama, not Res-Sa-Rec-Shun, still waiting for your answer on Res-Sa-Rec-Shun, also 30rap.com is a notable, reliable, independent website, don't know why you're so stubborn, 71.82.112.43 sure isn't. Bozo33 (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per OP. No indication of any notability. His only claim to fame appears to be surrounding Tupac conspiracy theories. Karst (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block creator - Article is a mixture of plagiarism (first line of the biography steals from the source cited), or WP:OR. I've been spending the past few hours cleaning up after his WP:BADHAND use of an IP, and am currently writing an ANI report over all the messes the creator (who falsely claims to be an administrator on his user page) has created. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 26 November 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 6 South African Infantry Battalion#List of Commanders. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altin Gysman[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The primary requirement for notability is "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." WP:SOLDIER goes on to provide guidance of the kind of person who is likely to have sufficient coverage, but that doesn't mean if they are not that kind of person they haven't received sufficient coverage. Gysman is covered by Grocott's Mail, The Sunday Times and SA Soldier. So it is clear that Gysman has "received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, as the creator of the page. As above, the rank etc issues are guidelines, the fact that he was exposed to the media is what makes him notable under those criteria. The fact that he had a unique command in a unique operation should count towards that too. BoonDock (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 6 South African Infantry Battalion#List of Commanders. In searching for content about the subject, there are multiple mentions of the subject in non-primary or secondary reliable sources, that being said most of the sources mention the subject as part of the unit which the subject commands. I have found no reliable sources that are tertiary to the subject, where the subject has received significant coverage and is the primary topic of the content, therefore, the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As for WP:SOLDIER, the statement "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." comes directly from GNG, I should know I helped write SOLDIER. It means, that even if the subject does not meet the criteria set forth in SOLDIER, if the subject meets GNG, the article subject is notable. In this case the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in SOLDIER and does not meet GNG. Therefore, at this time the best that can be done other than deletion is to change this article into a redirect towards an embedded list of commanders of the unit which the subject is a commander of, as most of the reliable sources that I have found about this article, are about the unit not the unit's commander, as its primary topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are very few articles on Wikipedia that would survive your very strict interpretation of the guidelines.Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Waynejayes:, I have seen several South African military articles come up for AfD recently. Don't know why, but perhaps there are in-depth reliable sources in languages other than English, that might cause difficulty in finding sources in my search. Either way, without meeting the criteria set forth in SOLDIER, or meeting GNG directly, I cannot support retaining this article as a stand alone name in the mainspace. If the reliable sources can be found to verify the subject meets GNG, I would be happy to reconsider my current opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast I could live with that. BoonDock (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 6 South African Infantry Battalion#List of Commanders section to the page and duplicated some of the Gysman info there. Comments appreciated.. BoonDock (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there past commanders that can be verified?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject has not received "significant coverage" in reliable sources (not a single book reference that I could find and nothing on Scholar). As such he is not notable per the WP:GNG. Also happy with a redirect per RightCowLeftCoast, I guess it might be a valid search time. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Lieutenant-colonels, battalion commanders or otherwise, are not usually considered to be notable. The only coverage of him is routine stuff relating to him doing his job. Nothing makes him stand out from the countless thousands of other officers who have held his rank over the centuries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 12 November 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 03:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Necrothesp. I find that this sentence from the article indicates that he is just another mid-rank soldier doing his job competently for his country: "Col Gysman has attended all the required military courses for his rank and post." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - I'm not seeing the sufficiently significant and multiple independent coverage about the subject. eg The South African Times includes short quotes from the subject, but the article is about the unit not about him. And one of the sources (defenceweb.co.za) is reusing content from another (Grocott's Mail) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 18 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiane (singer)[edit]

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

Notability issue. No sources found besides non reliable magazines. This person is linked to reality show and hasn't done anything remarkable so far. Puda (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiane has made it to the official Top 10 in France in SNEP charts from his being featured in The High School Musical in the single "Briser mes chaines" See http://lescharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Sofiane&titel=Briser+mes+cha%EEnes&cat=s French charts are a majour chart market. It had a run of 27 weeks on the French charts. He was signed to EMI a majour label as well... In 2012 he had yet another single "Dingue de toi (Nabi...Nabilla)". It stayed 9 weeks on the French singles chart. See http://lescharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Sofiane&titel=Dingue+de+toi+%28Nabi%2E%2E%2ENabilla%29&cat=s werldwayd (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been looking on both Google CA and Google FR but could not find anything notable enough besides public.fr, melty.fr and NRJ.fr. Clearly Gossip Magazines. It seems to me that Sofiane has only been successful with "Dingue de toi" since he was dating Nabilla Benattia at the time. And she was extremely popular at the time in France. Puda (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 1 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 7 November 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 03:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAlert, Inc.[edit]

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

A rather thick slick of spam,not a genuinely encyclopedic article. I am not seeing this article meeting WP:CORP requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam turns up a number of links but I'm not seeing anything beyond routine announcements, nor is the PR Toolkit quotation sufficient to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:CORP, but further suggest that "all sources contain the abbreviation PR" be considered a CSD criterion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:49, 22 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Christian[edit]

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

My redirect to the band (Anberlin) was reverted by Walter Görlitz, "Notability is established". I beg to differ. The article is a veritable fan piece ("...is known for his powerful, elegant vocal style and wide vocal range") without a single reliable source--I mean, look at the sourcing, it's pathetic, and to list them here is almost an embarrassment. A quick Google search gives nothing else, at least nothing I found that discusses him in a reliable source outside of his band, as is required by WP:BAND, final paragraph--I come to AfD to request community consensus to uphold that guidelines and endorse a redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG that needs to be cleaned up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter Görlitz, please cite a single reliable source that discusses him in any significant way outside of the band. "Cleanup" here would require the removal of everything, since there are no reliable sources. Do you really think chatter.myyearbook.com is an acceptable source for a BLP? DYK that there isn't a single live link among that crap in the reference section? Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I checked them, they discussed him. They're all dead links now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but was chatter.myyearbook.com at that time a reliable source? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not every source in an article needs to be reliable, just useful and with an author who can be identified. Earflaps (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirecting would be absurd, as the subject has his own notable side project and is the frontman of a notable band. His notability is independent of either project. Earflaps (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up, transferred references from some related pages. He also founded a record label and wrote a book...not quite sure how you missed all that Drmies, since it was in the article to start 0_o. Earflaps (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I missed someone having written a book, and they even published it online, by themselves? Stop the press. Seriously, I don't know if you know this, but anyone can publish a book these days through iUniverse, LuLu, etc--and that's what this person did. It's called self-publication. You can do the same with music; anyone can start a record label. Again, I point at the references, and Walter Görlitz, I'm still hoping you'll provide things that count as reliable sources. Dead or not, they need to be reliable. Earflaps, you said "Not every source in an article needs to be reliable, just useful and with an author who can be identified"--that's just incredibly wrong, in more ways than I can count, but I'll count three: yes, they do need to be reliable, no, they don't have to be "useful" (whatever that means), and no, they don't have to have an identifiable author. Really. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has a book, with a Wikipedia page. You're of course free to nominate that for deletion too, but you haven't done so yet, so I have no reason to assume you think it's not notable. And if everything on Wikipedia needed to be reliable, why are we always using Twitter for celebrity announcements, huh? (since twitter is being routinely 'hacked,' or so those same celebrities always claim after they say something stupid). Point is, some references are for fleshing out facts (PR releases can be great for boring info like dates), while others are great for proving notability in a deletion discussion. They don't need to do both at once. Earflaps (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has a Wikipedia page, for now--it's already up for deletion. A self-published book which no one appears to have read. I don't know about you, but I never cite Twitter. You seem to be under some misapprehension: all sources that are cited need to be reliable. All of them. They don't all have to be the New York Times, but they need to be reliable--it's as simple as that. In this case, there are no reliable sources at all--just blogs, zines, whatnot. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" is always open to interpretation around here, and many many many essays have been written about the topic. My opinion? Commercial = "reliable" nowadays, which excludes social media entirely. I periodically use social media statements from artist accounts (which is perfectly allowed, I'll find you the wp:alphabet soup if you want it), but I don't consider those sources "reliable." Earflaps (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, are you still arguing that no references on this page are reliable, or am I misinterpeting? You did look at it, right? Earflaps (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep asking me if I looked at something, read this or that, whatever? The only reliable source is this one, and it says nothing about the subject. The only other possibly reliable source is the article from the Sun-Sentinel, but it's dead, and so what it says and how it says it cannot be verified. So yes, I am still arguing that. Also, your opinion about what reliable sources are is irrelevant, and this jibber-jabber about essays is neither here nor there. Why you keep talking about artists' Twitter or social media accounts is unclear to me: the question here is whether something like Chatter.myyearbook.com is reliable. The answer is no. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Please read WP:SARCASM and META:DICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't address the actual issue? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The additions I was hoping you would see were AbsolutePunk and ARTISTdirect. 24hour cool down, wanted to apologize for being catty yesterday - afd don't really bring out my best :/ [actually the reason usually just skulk around in graph land]. Did want to point out, Drmies, that while I still believe this nom rationale is absurd, I don't think you are absurd - I've seen your edits improve a lot of pages over at the amusement park project, and never seen you do anything not badass and spot on, excluding this one case. If I may...I noticed you redirect several band member pages at once (most deserved it), and this one may have slipped in as an oversight? We all do it, though food for thought - when I tend to make an oversight in an afd, people will just smack me in the face with a trout and move on. Your account, editors are quite likely to accept your opinion as a precedent, just on reputation; so if you do make a normal mistake, it may be less likely to correct itself. Earflaps (talk) 07:24, 21 November 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 03:51, 15 November 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. Michig (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout[edit]

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

BLP with sources that fail WP:V / WP:GNG . Sources are press releases. (COI / allegedly paid editing - see WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell) Widefox; talk 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see my remarks about CNN iReport not being a WP:RS, and BBC Record London is nothing to do with the BBC, also not a RS. Widefox; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be very good at self promotion, but there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are misleading: for example, the Boston Finance ref is actually a press release, and the CNN ref is user generated content. Pburka (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article about Marko Stout passes WP:N, especially with regard to his work in the field of Fine Arts: renowned museums, such as the Moscow Museum of Modern Art feature his work. Both CNN (article), as well as Boston.com (article) are reliable sources that discuss Stout. I hope this helps. With regards, AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNN ref is user generated content ("Not verified by CNN") and the Boston.com ref is a press release ("By: Press Release Nation"). Pburka (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes they aren't CNN but CNN iReport which is WP:UGC so not a reliable source and does not count for notability. I've already tagged as such. Widefox; talk 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Subject seems to pass notability. His work is featured at Exhibitions including New York City Art Galleries and there is any hardly any chance to have a solo exhibition over there. Not every person is mentioned in tier 1 sources and really that doesn't makes him non-notable. My vote is keep for him. Ireneshih (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "New York City Art Gallery" in particular? There are thousands, and many will host anybody's solo shows for a fee. Pburka (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the Gloria Stein Gallery I think, but New York City Art Galleries sounds more impressive. Pol098 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, the "Gloria Stein Art Gallery" has never hosted an exhibit other than Marko Stout's. I'm not even sure the gallery exists. Pburka (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That archive.org link is WP:UGC video (as good as a youtube video) - not a WP:RS, and so doesn't count for notability, let alone for a WP:BLP. When you say "Not every person is mentioned in tier 1 sources and really that doesn't makes him non-notable" - that really is a good definition of a non-notable person. we go by what we can verify in RS. Widefox; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is crystal clear to me of the reliability of the sources CNN and BBC Record London, per that both sources, subject's notability is established, both sources have editorial board, and are third party sources.Justice007 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNN link is user generated content: it says "Not verified by CNN" in the corner. The BBC Record appears to have no connection to the BBC, and the link in question is a reprinted press release. Pburka (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pburka, I don't think anyone dare to publish a matter, news and etc in a way that is legally prohibited, and the world wide media is yet unaware of it?!!!, second it is a part of the CNN. The BBC Record London, whatever it is, has an editorial board, so it is a third party source. What do you mean a press release?!, while that is published in the BBC, every institution send written things in a press release shape, how it is published, that is a layout of the media. On that point, the press release, here is as a source for, not itself.Justice007 (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "legally prohibited", whatever that means; it's just not reviewed by anyone at CNN. You or I could write a story, and CNN would be happy to host it on their iReports website with no editorial oversight. And the BBC Record has nothing to do with the BBC. It seems to be two guys in London who run a community newspaper and republish press releases. Can you clarify what the rest of your comment means? I don't understand your point about the press release being a source for itself. Pburka (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both iReport (it is not under CNN editorial control, but just WP:UGC) and BBC Record London (which is nothing to do with the BBC) are clearly not WP:RS, so a decision based on them being RS is flawed. Widefox; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Promotional article with wholly unreliable sources: WP:UGC and press releases. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Article is maintained by a nest of undeclared COI editors, blocked socks, in violation of TOU [32]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete I checked the first 4 sources, but someone had been there before me. All user generated, dead, sponsored or a blog. Does not seem to meet GNG. No credit even on IMDB for She Wants Me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
- The bigger problem is that we don't know who sent these press releases and other information to the various sites. If we remove all the unreliable sources, the article becomes an unsourced BLP. And some of the information is contentious - for example the She wants Me claim ~~and therefore all the other film claims, which I will now remove until they are reliably sourced~~. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Keep, Looking at all the discussion in detail Subject seems to be Multimedia artist with strong fan following on social networks. He seems to be notable and popular in New York. Although there are not any major mentions in tier1 newspapers but still his work makes in notable. I will be surprised to see if this page is deleted here altough his facebook page is verified. All there might not be any strong references to verify his claims but still subject if notable and the page can be marked for more references. My decision is a Keep for this page.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Shashanksinghvi334 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

A facebook source is WP:PRIMARY so does not count for notability. It is not primarily a WP:VOTE, and the strength of your reasoning based on notability guidelines should be considered in closing. Widefox; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 14 November 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 03:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted: as article is relisted and has changed, pinging User:Renzoy16 User:Ireneshih User:Justice007 User:Shashanksinghvi334 for replies to the points put to them. Widefox; talk 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there just aren't enough independent sources. Even the web pages for CNN and BBC, which are normally reliable sources, have an opinion problem. Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, and just to be clear, it's not a real BBC website. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I saw "BBC" in the name and assumed it was a BBC website. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:08, 19 November 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 Joe Rogan. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rogan Experience[edit]

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

No indication at all given of notability.

But it's been around for a while, so I'll give it a chance at AFD instead of sending it to A7 CSD. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked #5 on Stitcher, outranking other podcasts on Wikipedia that have no question of their significance (such as Stuff You Should Know and The Adam Carolla Show (podcast)): http://www.stitcher.com/stitcher-list/all-podcasts-top-shows
Hundreds of interviews with Wikipedia subjects, also with no question of their significance.
Over 240,000 YouTube subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/user/PowerfulJRE

Joshua Garner (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately while popularity can make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, this is not a guarantee and we would still require coverage in reliable sources to show notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) There are actually a lot of YouTube and podcast shows/personalities that are very popular but still fail notability guidelines. As far as association with notable persons goes, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Ultimately notability can only be proven by showing coverage in reliable sources, like newpaper articles and the like. There just isn't any other way to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Used as a source and mentioned by multiple professional journalists, sports journalists and otherwise^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
Awarded "Best Overall Show" in 2013 Sticher Awards^[5]
--Spaycemunkie (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaycemunkie: Unfortunately you'd have to show where the award is particularly noteworthy. Most awards aren't considered to be notable enough per Wikipedia's guidelines to give notability on here and I always like to say that less than 5% of the awards given for any reason (Nobel Prizes to Heisman Trophies) would give any sort of notability. In the case of the Stitcher Award, it doesn't appear to be of any particular note as far as Wikipedia goes. It's something I'd put on a page because it'd be interesting, but it's not something that would really show notability. Wikipedia is pretty strict about stuff like that. As far as the other sources go, LFPress is just a routine notification of an event for the most part and the show is only mentioned in passing, making it a WP:TRIVIAL source. The other sources mention the show in passing in relation to someone that was on the show. (Remember, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by notable persons being on the show!) The articles aren't really about the show itself, which makes them unusable as a source that would really show notability. They're not enough in and of themselves to show notability. We need articles that talk about the show in depth and not just in passing. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that these aren't sources that would show notability enough to save the article from deletion. So far it looks like unless there are better sources out there, the best option would be to merge and redirect to Rogan's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: I'm not sure I agree with the way you're interpreting the notability guidelines. None of the exceptions in WP:ORGDEPTH apply to the sources I provided, and I could throw out many more along the same lines (recent example: here). An interview show is composed of the words that are said during the interview. Those words are the content of the show. Also, WP:TRIVIAL either doesn't exist or doesn't apply--maybe you meant something else? It is true that there aren't a bevy of articles from large, reputable publications specifically about the podcast itself, rather than its content. Instead, what is said on the podcast--both by Rogan and his guests--regularly makes news in professional publications. WP:VIEWERSHIP also seems to apply, although it's a vague and contested section. Those things, I think, make the podcast adequately, if not ideally, meet the notability guides. But main gist I think of why people believe the podcast is notable is because it actually is. It has over 500 episodes that each garner hundreds of thousands to millions of unique downloads, at a minimum double the viewership of prime-time CNN. It has generated a massive following--fan pages, forums, popular subreddits, etc. The podcast has actually "made" the careers of many of its guests. You can certainly debate whether the podcast meets the letter of the notability guidelines (I would argue that it does) but you can't argue that it doesn't meet the spirit. This may just be yet another good example of how the notability guidelines are quickly becoming outdated, particularly in their bias for corporate media recognition ("reputable") over social media and grassroots recognition. That's certainly a topic for another venue, but it's nonetheless, in my view, patently true. Spaycemunkie (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to page views? (WP:PAGEVIEW) I know that there are some mentions in various notability guidelines about fanbases, but those policies require that the fanbase itself have received substantial media coverage in and of themselves. In other words, those policies are written with the assumption that if the fanbase is particularly noteworthy then the show itself would be so notable that finding coverage would be incredibly easy. (Ex, Bronies, Trekkies, and so on.) Just being popular does not guarantee notability and Wikipedia does not consider popularity to be a reason to keep an article or assert notability. (See WP:ITSPOPULAR.) A show being popular makes it more likely that there will be coverage but it is not a guarantee. In any case, a better guideline for overall notability would probably be WP:WEB since it technically falls under the umbrella of "it's online" since it's a podcast. WP:ORG is more associated with businesses and corporations. But in any case, the reason why we cannot use the sources you listed as in-depth sources is because they are not about the show but about the person being interviewed. The podcast is only briefly mentioned in relation to the main subject and there's no true in-depth coverage of the podcast. Basically, the article needs to be about the podcast itself and go into depth. A good example of what is considered to be usable is this article about Welcome to Night Vale. Not only is it in-depth, but it's also in a place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. It's expected that notable people will be interviewed and it's extremely common for people to mention some of the places they've been interviewed. The problem with interviews is that in the vast majority of cases it's not where the news first dropped but what is being said. Unless the coverage goes into extreme detail about the where, the notability is really given to what is being said. Usually the only time the "where" is really given much attention is when the "where" is particularly controversial or otherwise contentious, like in an instance where the BBC aired an interview with a member of ISIS. The reason for this is because as I said, there are so many name drops for various news and podcast outlets that just being briefly mentioned as interviewing someone doesn't give notability. It's considered to be either trivial or a case of "not inherited". In any case, here's a better rundown of the sources:

Sources

LF Press. This is a notification for an event where Redban will be performing as a standup comedian, independently of the show. The extent of the show's mention is limited to the sentence "He is producer/co-host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that touches on philosophy, psychedelics, sports and comedy" and the article is not about the show or even Redburn's contributions to the show. It's to let people know about upcoming performances.
Bleacher Report. This is ultimately about Georges St-Pierre's brush with an alien life form. That he was on the Joe Rogan Experience when he mentioned this is only briefly mentioned in passing to identify where the comments were made. It is considered to be trivial.
Yahoo Sports. This is the same story and again, the show is only briefly mentioned and the sole focus of the article is on GSP.
Bloody Elbow. This is probably the first source that really mentions the show in any depth, but the main focus is still GSP. The show is just the vehicle through which the interview happened and as it's expected that shows with any followings will have interviews with notable persons.
Stitcher Awards. Better, but you have to show that a Stitcher Award is one that would give notability. It's pretty hard to assert notability for any given award on Wikipedia because there are so many awards out there and at some point Wikipedia has to draw the line. The reason I emphasize Wikipedia is because while an award might seem impressive to you or I, at some point Wikipedia has to draw the line for notability purposes. A good rule of thumb is to google the name of the award. If there aren't a lot of news outlets in general reporting on the awards, even if it's just to announce winners, then odds are that Wikipedia would not consider it to be particularly notable. I did search and found less than 10,000 hits for the award, few of them in places that would be considered a RS.
Vice Sports. This does mention Rogan and a particular interview in some depth, so it'd probably be usable for a controversy section. However the problem is, this is really the only source you've given so far that is actually in depth. You'd have to show more coverage to show that this particular controversy is notable and that the show has gained additional coverage as a whole.

I know that it must seem like I'm trying particularly hard to argue against notability, but it's not like I particularly want the page deleted. Mostly it's just that the sourcing so far is very, very weak and it's the type of sourcing where if by some chance this does survive based on the sources you've provided, it'd be very easily deleted in a followup AfD. This is actually fairly common, as notability standards have grown increasingly more strict over time. The days are long since gone when we could easily show notability by saying that someone or something has a large fanbase. Part of this is because we've had several people try to claim notability by stating numbers that were later discovered to have been purchased. Other times it's because we've had people receive dozens upon hundreds of trivial mentions but no actual in-depth coverage. You can lobby for changes, but I can honestly say that the chances of you arguing for looser guidelines will be extremely unlikely to bear any fruit. It'd be nice if you and others could argue for looser standards because it'd make my work here a lot easier and it'd make it so I can write about YouTube celebrities with sizable followers (Cryaotic has almost 2 million followers but still fails notability guidelines), but it's just very unlikely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Joe Rogan Does not appear to be notable enough for its own article (which consists mainly of a list of every episode and guest). The show is already mentioned in his article.Mdtemp (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Rogan Doesn't meet any applicable notability criteria to qualify for its own article. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 15 November 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 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Rogan - I think Tokyogirl79 has made a persuasive argument regarding the quality of the sourcing, and the article is almost entirely a list of previous episodes (c.f. WP:NOTDIR " an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:09, 21 November 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) Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Verma[edit]

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

This was a declined Speedy deletion, as I did not feel that it met the criteria for speedy deletion.

There is a claim to notability, but although I do not agree with a speedy deletion, I do feel that this article does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Worthy though the gentleman may be, worthiness does not equate to notable. I feel that it is a decision for the community here to decide upon. Obviously, as the nominator, I veer towards the delete end of the spectrum! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable per WP:NACADEMICS and WP:ANYBIO. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep Notability established per WP:ANYBIO, meeting both criteria, awards and contributions and also on WP:NACADEMICS, criteria nos, 2, 3, 6, and 8. --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Padma Shri is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am very surprised at the present nomination, which is made on the basis of notability. The article was originally put forward for speedy deletion as promotional (WP:CSD#G11), which seems to me a far better rationale for deletion than questions about the subject's notability. The article is totally promotional from start to finish, telling us over and over again how wonderful Mahesh Verma is, and it is totally unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. I am, of course, fully aware of the fact that articles which are totally promotional but on potentially notable subjects are often defended on the grounds that "it could be re-written so that it is suitable", but in my experience editors who advance that as a "keep" reason virtually never actually do the re-writing: once an article is kept so that it can be re-written it is then just left. If anyone wants to blow it up and start over then that will be fine, but the present article is totally unsuitable, and I see no benefit in keeping it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments While I respect JamesBWatson's experience, I beg to disagree with him on this point; the abundance of a notable person's achievements should not be construed as promotion. I am afraid if it is taken further, an article creator would be tempted to leave out parts of information fearing deletion, which otherwise would render the article more comprehensive. In this article, no statements have been repeated barring those in the lead section and there are no peacock or judgmental usages. The length of the article or the affluence of claims only reflect the subject's achievements or the richness of his career. It would be a sacrilege if a Padma Shri and B. C. Roy awardee is denied an article just because the narration of his achievements which, in the first place, earned him the awards, is too long.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments jojo@nthony has said most of what I would have said. If there are no peacock words, all positive claims are verifiable, then I won't call it promotional. If any critical commentary exist about how Mahesh Verma is not wonderful, that should be added. Not that the article be deleted and re-written. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 16:14, 8 November 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 03:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments User:EricEnfermero has since done a good job in toning down the article.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:22, 15 November 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. J04n(talk page) 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Tate Realtors[edit]

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

Most refs are the companies own and those that aren't are mere mentions or no mention at all. Nothing here conveys notability. Fails WP:CORP. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 18 references, 14 of which are from independent sources. All allentate.com references can be deleted without losing article credibility.Allentatecjdr (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)allentatecjdr[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasted far too much time on this AfD. I found minor local coverage, and trivial mention in "Who's Who" books and the like. Now, as to the article's 19 references (virtually all of which are local):

five are from the company's own website;
seven mention charitable contributions by the company, but virtually nothing about the company itself[33][34][35][36][37][38][39];
three have but a single sentence, or a one line listing[40][41][42];
two are about the man, not the company, with no in-depth coverage of the company[43][44];
two don't even mention the company[45][46]

It's also of concern that the article creator and only real contributor is a new WP:SPA whose user name is like that of the article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been submitted to create this much controversy. It is intended to be a short, factual acknowledgement of the Allen Tate Company as a business entity whose history is well-known in the Carolinas. There is nothing promotional, and the facts have been supported by references of credible sources. There seem to be many articles on companies in the real estate industry with longer entries (and definite promotional language) resident on Wikipedia which have not been flagged. In the instance of other, larger entities (Apple, Bank of America, etc.), promotion of products and links to ecommerce are prevalent. This article does not engage in any of this promotion frowned upon by Wikipedia. It is an informative entry regarding a company prominent in that region of the country.

The account was created solely to submit this article - hence the user name. But it has been created, as much as possible, to remain inside of Wikipedia best practices. Allentatecjdr (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)allentatecjdr[reply]

Keep: Organization seems large and notable, albeit not a sexy tech company or what have you. Needs some re-writing to be more objective.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Two Burlington Companies Go With Allen Tate Realtors". Winston-Salem Journal. 2005-05-21. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  From the article (bolding added for emphasis):
  Rouse Holt & Flora Realtors and Sam W. Moore Realtors, real-estate companies in Burlington, have merged with Allen Tate Realtors.
  The companies will operate as Allen Tate Realtors at their current offices. Allen Tate, one of the largest real-estate companies in North Carolina, is based in Charlotte and recently expanded to the Triad.
  Rouse Holt & Flora Realtors and Sam W. Moore Realtors with a combined sales team of 40 and 354 active listings will join a sales force of nearly 250 Allen Tate sales associates in the Triad.
  Allen Tate expects to do more than $600 million in sales in the Triad this year. Allen Tate said that the Burlington deals make it the No. 1 company for active listings in that market.
2. "Allen Tate Realtors Donate $7k to Komen Race for the Cure". Garner News. 2008-07-02. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
3. "Allen Tate purchases Stoney Creek real estate company". Garner News. 2005-10-12. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
4. Lunan, Charles (2004-07-01). "Allen Tate Realtors Stakes Claim in Mint Hill - Realty Office Purchase Positions Company for Growth from Outerbelt". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes:
  Allen Tate Realtors plants its flag in Mint Hill today by gobbling up its eighth independent real estate broker in as many years.
  The Charlotte-based real estate giant, which broke the $4 billion sales mark last year, said it has acquired Fran Harris Realtors. Neither company would disclose terms of the agreement.
  ...
  Allen Tate has grown rapidly since the mid-1990s. The company's first major acquisition came in 1996, when it bought a brokerage with three offices in York County. The company finished that year with 12 offices. At the end of last year, it operated 24, including offices acquired in Lancaster, Monroe, High Point and Greensboro, said Riley, who has overseen eight acquisitions in the last eight years.
5. Price, Dudley (2007-03-20). "Company's arrival shakes up brokers ranks". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes:
  Allen Tate Realtors, one of the country's largest residential brokerages, is tapping into its top executive's former company to build a local sales team.
6. White, Sharon E. (2000-11-30). "Go West: Allen Tate Realtors Moves into Cleveland County". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Allen Tate Realtors to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:35, 15 November 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 03:41, 15 November 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 Red (Taylor Swift album. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Stay Stay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that aren't album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated in the last AfD, this is a charting song with sufficient content specific to the song; deletion doesn't improve our coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charts are not an automatic indicator of notability. This article is a WP:CFORK at best as there is no independent coverage of the song. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is entirely incorrect to state there is "sufficient content specific to the song". The entire "Background" section is fluff about Swift's general writing process. There are also a scant couple of quotes from two reviews of the album, one of which is from About.com, a site which is has caused many frowns at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album) per SNUGGUMS. WP:NSONG notes that factors such as placing on national record charts "suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "[being] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" (which this has not been). –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - The "Background" section doesn't even mention the bloody song! Also worth noting that the song has placed on download charts rather than the standard, much more noteworthy, singles charts. It is not demonstrated that the song has received significant coverage independent of album reviews. Nothing here that is not adequately contained on the articles for Taylor Swift discography and Red (Taylor Swift album). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:52, 14 November 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 03:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This article does not fail WP:NSONG, as the song is listed on multiple national ranking charts. However, there doesn't seem to be any independent non-trivial works regarding this song that warrant it notable enough to have its own article. I think merging this article is the best solution. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It actually DOES fail WP:NSONGS for having no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that aren't album reviews, though yes this should be redirected. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems fine. Everyking (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're an administrator with 10 years experience and you think "seems fine" is an appropriate contribution to an AFD...? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't? Everyking (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is up to you. But "Seems fine" is just a vote. There isn't any policy-based argument, just a statement that you kind of like it. Properly, whoever closes the debate should ignore it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:13, 19 November 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. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this closure prevents the normal editorial actions of merging or redirecting from being taken. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevzorov Haute Ecole[edit]

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

Non-notable riding school, WP:PROMO and WP:FRINGE. No hits in Google news archive, no hits on News, no in-depth coverage in independent sources that I can find. Most of the sources in the article are either self-published or irrelevant. "NHE" in the article creator's username may indicate a conflict of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: per WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE; all I can find are in-house web pages and self-published materials other than this. That said, may want to extend an offer to allow the lead editor to have the article userfied on his/her talk page as a sandbox, they put a fair bit of work into it. Though claiming to be Natural horsemanship, this is fringe even by the NH standard. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:00, 30 October 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 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and very selectively merge some of the sourcing here (such as the Horses for Life cites) to Alexander Nevzorov, where this is already covered. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be a number of offline and/or Russian-language sources, including those cited in the article. It's not surprising that coverage of this school would be minimal in English-language media, but there is enough for a decent article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of merging into the Alexander Nevzorov article. Tweaking my !vote accordingly. It's pretty much a one-person gig. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:33, 8 November 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 03:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and thanks to Tokyogirl79 for adding to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Skulls[edit]

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

Contested prod. This band does not meet WP:N. Nearly all of the sources in the article are self-published sources by the band and those that are not do not even work. Recent popularity of a fan's music video does not equate to notability, particularly as the band still has no media presence to support notability. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some evidence to show that the band is indeed notable: ([47], [48], [49], [50]) It looks like they were also the headliner at one party and played in various locations, but I'm not sure how much that will contribute. However I think that the question here should be whether or not this band/project should have its own article or be merged into the article for Luis Dubuc. So far I'm leaning towards a merge because there's not a huge amount on Dubuc's page and this could likely be easily condensed into his article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to Luis Dubuc~~ for now, anyway. I think that we could maybe argue for an individual article, but at this point in time there's not a huge amount here that couldn't already be covered at Dubuc's article. When/if the act gains more coverage that would go beyond a few paragraphs, we can always un-redirect. I think that while we could argue for an individual article, that doesn't mean that this is the best option out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 October 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 02:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just this week, the song "Ghost" by Mystery Skulls debuted at #17 on the Billboard US Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart, ([51], [52]) which I think helps establish the band's notability since they have charted. I realize it may not fully establish it, but I think it helps to. Moonchïld9 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep. It's good enough for me, Moonchïld9- I was actually just checking back in since coverage did seem to keep trickling in for them and I was hoping that there would be more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 14 November 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 03:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The animation associated with Mystery Skulls' "Ghost" has achieved considerable notoriety. This page could probably be expanded to be more useful, though I'll admit I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia bureaucracy. 181.160.107.127 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 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 three calls to delete against one to keep. The main dispute appears to be the sourcing. There is some coverage in sources that are independent of the subject - the AfD nominator found one such source, which though it may be a complaint against the subject, does cover it. There has been some discussion regarding just which of the sources do cover the event. However, after eliminating those which appear to have used in error, there are still several sources left. That the event is termed "Global", but is actually Asian, is not a valid rationale for deletion, otherwise there would be questions raised about the World Series. The quality of the sources and the amount of significance of the coverage has also been questioned. One source does appear to be a blog. However, Thai Rath has covered the event using three paragraphs, and other sources have also mentioned it. I don't think, however, that the case has fully been made that the event is notable, but nor has the case been made that it isn't, so there is No consensus to delete the main article. The two sub-articles Mister Global 2014 and Mister Global 2015 both lack reliable sources, so after closing I will redirect those titles to the parent article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Global[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Googling the sites of seven major Thai news outlets, both Thai and English, reveals only one mention in Thai Rath from 25 March, reporting on criticism of the event.[53] Google News gives only coverage of the death of the Malaysian contestant. Also nominating the following articles for deletion:

Mister Global 2014
Mister Global 2015 Paul_012 (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because it's not the usual tits, teeth and high heels pageant doesn't mean it deserves an article on here. If it's Mr. Global then where is global coverage? Mabalu (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Given the plethora of unencyclopaedic pages on things that people happen to like, an article on a new pop culture event should be verified by reliable sources, not just advertising material from the promoters. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources added. Its big news in only select countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, particularly when somebody from one of these countries wins. Guys have watched beauty pageants of women for many years; time for the gals to have their fun.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable sources" are flat-out ridiculous: Eton B. makes a single passing mention of "Mister Global". Julie M. Aurelio, The Philippine Star and Philippines Daily Inquirer write about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PAGEANTS (!!!check the names and dates!!!) with no mentions of this "Mister Global" competition. The only one to properly address the subject (VOVNEWS) looks like a non-descript entertainment blog and offers no indication of the size or significance of the event.
As for it being "time for gals to have fun", I can't understand how an atrociously mis-referenced article about a minor pageant with virtually no news coverage will provide any delight for Wikipedia's female readership. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all refer to people who were in the Mister Global pageant. Removal of these sources by Suriel1981 -- in an article up for deletion -- constitutes in my view, borderline vandalism. Let reviewers and the closing admin decide whether the references are legitimate. Since I do not edit war, I will not keep adding the sources but a referenced version of this article can be found here in a sandbox. I urge all reviewers to take this into account.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the dates and the names, for goodness sake!! They don't come close to matching up. Anyone can make a mistake, but making three in a row and using it as an argument in an XFD is pretty sloppy. If you fancy reporting me to the powers-that-be for vandalism then go for it. But they are going to tell you to read your sources before citing them. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources, on articles up for deletion, is in my view, bad form. Let reviewers and the closing admin decide their merit. Also, noting that the Mister Global pageant is big not only in the Philippines but in Vietnam. Sources are here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Also, the event is getting coverage in Serbia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the crap. You inserted several citations which clearly referred to different events on different days. If you'd read the damn things, you'd have known that. And you've since claimed "It does not matter whether each reference is focused on a different pageant (since contestants typically enter different pageants)". I have to call your judgement into question if you genuinely believe that is acceptable editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember no personal attacks and to assume good faith. About the removed references: the Manila Standard said Joseph Doruelo took the title Mister Global Philippines along with the Philippine Daily Inquirer said Mister Global Philippines Joseph Doruelo and The Nation said Mister Global Philippines Joseph Doruelo. These references all pertain to the article up for deletion -- about Philippine contestant Joseph Doruelo being in the Mister Global pageant. Are the references perfect or ideal? No, but few references are, and removing them when an article is up for deletion seems highly unfair.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 14 November 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 03:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are either a liar or illiterate. Mister Global 2014 (the inaugural Mister Global event) took place on March 27, 2014 in Pak Chong. As for your "sources": Julie M. Aurelio and Philippines Daily Inquirer refer to an event on September 7, 2014 in Makati and a future event in South Korea , The Philippine Star refers to an event on November 30, 2013 in Greenhills.
Conclusion - either you are incapable of reading the articles you are trying to cite or you are simply lying about it in a desperate attempt to save face. Either way, you've shown total ignorance and contecmpt for Wikipedia policies, so don't even try quoting AGF at me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:32, 15 November 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 Bestiary#Modern bestiaries,. WP:IAR certainly gives the participants in an AfD the authority to ignore a guideline's requirement for multiple sources. And, while being the first of something in centuries doesn't imbue inherent notability, again, WP:IAR gives the participants here the ability to say, It's notable because we say it is. But, none of those things happened here. As a side note, I'd never heard of bestiaries before; Bestiary is a wonderful article and I'm glad my closing of this AfD introduced me to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blessed Book of Beasts[edit]

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

just barely and only meets criteria 1 of WP:BK Avono♂ (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Meeting "at least one" of the notability criteria for books establishes a presumption of notability, and the nom advances no valid arguments for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, as WP:NBOOK states that the book only has to meet one criterion. The nom has openly admitted that his rationale is only meeting one criterion. The nom's argument is quite literally specifically contradicted by WP:NBOOK, the very policy he is citing, so I am closing. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Kinu Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess:, I'm assuming, based on your changed !vote, that your use of the <str> tag was meant to be the use of the <s> tag, so I've fixed it accordingly; feel free to revert and let me know if this is incorrect. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per User:James500 Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, I fail to see how WP:NBOOK is met. It's the same review by the Catholic News Service that happens to have been syndicated on two sites that aggregate such content. I don't believe that the "multiple" aspect of criterion #1 is met. One review by one person, regardless of whether he is an expert in the field as suggested by the article, is not enough coverage upon which to base an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per WP:IAR: The word "multiple" in criteria 1 of NBOOK serves no useful purpose whatsoever and should simply be deleted from that criteria because it is complete and utter total nonsense. In any event, one review by an expert is certainly enough to satisfy GNG, which has never required multiple sources in absolute terms. And in any event, if it is the first bestiary written in the Christian tradition to be produced in several hundred years, it is inherently notable. James500 (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the establish consensus on the wording of WP:NBOOK, there are venues for discussing such a proposal; within the scope of an AfD is not it. I also don't see how being "the first X in Y" makes it "inherently notable" (which isn't even supported by the lone source, which simply calls it "one of the first"). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The established consensus at WP:IAR, which is policy, is that we can ignore any guideline that is harmful to Wikipedia. I am suggesting that we ignore the appearance of "multiple" in this one, on this occasion, per the policy. James500 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is "one of the first" bestiaries produced in centuries, it presumably satisfies criteria 3 of NBOOK (significant contribution to a significant art form). James500 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some confusing information around this book. It says that it was written "by an anonymous author under the pen name..." First, that makes it pseudonymous, not anonymous. But in fact a Jon Scott ran a Kickstarter campaign to create exactly the book described here (and it includes his photo, a bio, and contact information). So the great "mystery" about the author is no mystery at all. I found one review not listed here in a Boston-based Catholic news source [54]. If the article is retained, however, it should have more information about the author, the creation of the book, etc. Look at pages for other books and you see that they are not exclusively a summary of the content of the book. Something else must be provided to make it notable. If that can't be provided, then I say delete. LaMona (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source you've mentioned is already included in the article; it's the same syndicated review by Fisher. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thanks. I didn't check for that. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Look at pages for other books" is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:NOTPLOT does require that at least one source that contains something more than a summary of the contents of the book, but the book review cited does actually supply that. It provides critical appraisal, such as saying that the author's citations are appropriate, or that his approach is sometimes stretched but worth the result, and so forth.
Even if we decided that this book isn't notable, the appropriate course of action would be merger and redirection to an (annotated) bibliography of bestiaries (probably Bestiary#Modern bestiaries), not deletion, as bestiaries obviously satisfy LISTN as a group. Obvious redirects are not eligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). James500 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch James500. Merge and redirect is a great solution. LaMona (talk) 16:44, 13 November 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 03:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that standalone notability has not been demonstrated, but I would not oppose a merge/redirect per James500 above. The book is already mentioned at Bestiary#Modern bestiaries, so cleaning up that particular sentence and changing the reference to something other than a press release (i.e. to the Fisher review) would be constructive. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:28, 15 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safi Saïd[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Simply being a candidate in the presidential election really isn't notable. There is no significant press coverage of the subject, in fact there's only one source on the article. A Google search reveals nothing for this person. st170e^talk 22:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you search "الصافي سعيد" you get over 2.8 million hits. Of course, I don't know if they are all him, but I think since his journalism is mostl in Arabic, this could account for the discrepancy--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

His electoral promises and other declarations in French and Arabic may be found on-line. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His article on French Wikipedia suggests that he was quite a prominent figure in the Arab world even before his candidacy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per french article and news hits.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:56, 5 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The French WP article is all of 3 or 4 sentences, and there are 2 references, both of which are extremely short (a few sentences each). I did find a few other short articles in French, but unless there are other significant sources, this person is not WP:NOTABLE. I actually followed through on the search in Arabic, and again only found very short articles (which I couldn't read, but I could see their length). LaMona (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, see for example campaign meet in Gafsa, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAokOy9i1ZU . A quick review of youtube videos https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A+%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF shows lots of clips from different news outlets and talk shows. --Soman (talk) 01:20, 16 November 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 03:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet the GNG and being a candidate is not sufficient to show notability as a politician. Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Not all language WPs have the same criteria, but he doesn't seem to meet any of the English ones.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maradeka[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE I searched for multiple non-primary or secondary reliable sources that give the subject of this article in depth significant coverage, and found the available lacking. Subject has received some mentions in reliable sources, but nothing that would be considered in depth, in my opinion. Furthermore, when searching books there is a brief mention of the subject in only two books, neither of which would be considered significant coverage. Therefore failing notability guidelines WP:ORG & WP:GNG, I am nominating this article for deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an awful article written as an advertisement, filled with fanboyism, poor English prose and many dead links. A number of the citations are not directly relevant to the article's subject matter. That being said, there does seem to be an amount of coverage which reaches a somewhat significant level. Among the thirty someodd references, around half of them are correctly used and the coverage of this organization in reputable news sources in Southeast Asia goes back a few years. The latest coverage is still recent and it seems that the organization, while not exceptionally notable, at least passes the minimum for WP:GNG as well as seeming to have increased in news coverage during the past year or so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us this in-depth/significant coverage that indicates that this organization meets GNG?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For instance:

Violent Internal Conflicts in Asia Pacific: Histories, Political Economies, and Policies. Yayasan Obor Indonesia. 1 January 2005. p. 193. ISBN 978-979-461-514-0.

Subject of this AfD is only given a single sentence

Benjamin Cole (27 September 2006). Conflict, Terrorism and the Media in Asia. Routledge. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-134-26394-3.

Subject of this AfD is only briefly mentioned

"Trivial mentions" do not meet WP:SIGCOV.

The subject was also mentioned twice in this news article, but the subject of this AfD is not that news article's primary topic, and does not give significant coverage to the organization that is the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 6 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that there is no significant coverage and this article is a misuse of Wikipedia's purpose. This article should be deleted and only re-written when proper coverage can be found and the article written to our standards. Op47 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @RightCowLeftCoast:, just to explain my reasoning earlier. Like I said, maybe half the references on this article do mention the organization in question. For some reason, several of the links which were working prior to my comment are now yielding those "404 not found" error messages - not sure why. There are at least two articles where the group is the central article, like this one from Gulf News. The one you posted from Inquirer does feature the group prominently, though - it's not as insigificant as your comment seems to imply. I'd say this other article from Inquirer is more insignificant. This, coupled with the dead links from other mainstream media sites (there are tools to fix dead links), does seem to imply that the group is barely notable in terms of mainstream media coverage over a long period of time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf News article is about the comment made by the organization in relation to the Iraq War, not about the organization itself. It is nothing like this article about CAIR, nor does the subject of this AfD have a chapter about it in a reliable source book like this. This is in-depth content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 9 November 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 03:30, 15 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Technologies[edit]

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

This is almost a speedy candidate, but it has already been recreated after a PROD once, so we should have a definitive discussion. This article is sourced only to the company's own website and their (also self written) page on spiceworks.com. I've looked in the usual places and I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this company that isn't a press release or similar. I think it fails both the notability criteria for companies and the General notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're comment, "This article is sourced only to the company's own website and their (also self written) page on spiceworks.com" is inaccurate. Spiceworks is not a self-written page of PJ Technologes, but rather a community of independent IT professionals stating their own un-solicited reviews and opinions of Goverlan, the software product of PJ Technologies. You may have found difficulty in finding varied sources on PJ Technologies, as we are almost always referenced by our product name, "Goverlan". Our software offering is largely discussed by independent reviewers^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6], journals^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10], and competitor analyses^[11] Thus making PJ Technologies, the creator and distributor of Goverlan, relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbergeot (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

^ Jonathan Hassell [1]
^ Top10 [2]
^ Windows IT Pro [3]
^ Softpedia [http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Remote-Utils/GoverLAN-Remote-Control.shtml ]
^ Tech Target [4]
^ BIMmuse [http://bimmuse.com/2013/09/09/goverlan-remote-administration/ Insurance Tech: http://www.insurancetech.com/pj-technologies-releases-goverlan-remote-administration-suite-v7/d/d-id/1311382?]
^ SPIE.DigitalLibrary [5]
^ ScienceDirect [6]
^ US Patents [7]
^ SpringerLink [8]
^ Concentrated Tech "Remote Support Solutions" http://www.concentratedtech.com/SiteAssets/CompareScope-Goverlan-RemoteSupport.pdf]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Blatant ad. The sources cited above are not sufficient to establish notability:

Hassel's blog post carries the disclaimer that it is advertising
TopTenReviews sells the software
WindowsITPro seems to be a proper review
SoftPedia sells the software
Tech Target's 'review' is written by Hassel - see #1
BIMmuse is a blog post
InsuranceWeek: just a press release
Jovenski et al. (2014) - I don't have access to SPIE Proceedings, but it does not mention Goverlan in the abstract, and there are no references (where Goverlan would be mentioned). See also below for Jovenski et al. (2013)
Ismail et al. (2012) mention it in passing in their introduction as an example they found using a bibliographic search
the patent mentions it in passing as an example of monitoring software
Joveski et al. (2013) mention it in appendix 1 as one example of this type of software
Concentrated Tech's whitepaper was commissioned by Goverlan/PJ Technologies

Only the review in WindowsITPro seems to be a reliable source - for Goverlan. That's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. None of the sources establish the notability of the company. The comments above by Pbergeot indicate a serious WP:COI, as does this earlier version of his/her userpage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goverlan Remote Control Software and WP:Articles for deletion/Goverlan VNC Viewer for closely related AfD discussions. Another related article by this user, WMIX Software, is currently PROD'ed.--Lemnaminor (talk) 09:42, 11 November 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 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Per Lemnaminor, the sources provided above are not significant independent coverage, with the possible exception of the WindowsITPro review. This article is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. A search turned up no additional significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also note PJ Technologies, Inc., created by the same user and speedily deleted under G11 and A7 in September. This is actually the third incarnation of this page. Lemnaminor (talk) 23:13, 17 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Player[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since August. Prod tag removed without comment. —Swpb^talk 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 13:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 13:50, 30 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judging by the references given, it is reasonable that someone may want to know what it is. Op47 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has had to be relisted twice, you get a reply. The possibility of someone wanting to know about the subject is not a valid argument for retention. Like every other article, this article requires reliable sources that establish notability and allow for neutral coverage of the subject. That is not even remotely the case here. —Swpb^talk 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources are single-author blogs (noodlemac, tektoria.de) incidental mentions, (verge) or commercial/related to the developer. The only possible exception is the french-language macg.co article, which is more in depth, but still just covers this software in a few paragraphs as one of 3 similar packages. On its own, this is not sufficient to establish notability. Also, this article's creator and a major contributor are SPAs, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 01:17, 10 November 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 03:27, 15 November 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 M-Dubs. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bump 'n' Grind (I Am Feeling Hot Tonight)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 23:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M-Dubs - as the song is not notable. Unreal7 (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Unreal7 and WP:NSONG. No evidence (or even claim) of notability.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~N-Dubz~~ M-Dubs as a non notable song. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean M-Dubs? Regardless, I think the consensus is clear. I am happy to agree that redirection is the better option.--Laun chba ller 01:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I misread the name - Most definitely meant "M-Dubs"

, (Commenting whilst closed as never realized I had a reply) Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:11, 22 November 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.

My apologies... the unsigned "Redirect" was by me at 00:55, November 15, 2014‎. Meters (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 06:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling for Bees[edit]

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

Can't find very much of anything. The only third-party sources are 1 and 2 and then nothing past 2010. None of the acts/individuals that comprise this collective seem to meet WP:BAND either. Cannolis (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this is notable. Having said that, if there were enough reliable sources until whatever time span, and not later, it could still be notable. Notability once asserted, I believe, does not disappear with the passage of time. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 15 November 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 A Girl like Me (Rihanna album). The history is still here if anyone wishes to merge anything. Michig (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

Previous AfD of 20 Rihanna song articles was closed as keep with no prejudice against individual nominations.

There are major NSONGS and GNG problems here. The sources here include album liner notes and iTunes listings (primary sources) and album reviews. The problem with non-primary sources exclusively being album reviews are that they are not significant coverage - they are passing mentions of the song in articles that are primarily about the parent album. NSONGS states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

This song charted at #38 in Spain, and while ranking on a national music chart is listed at NSONG as a factor that "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable", "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."

@Tomica, Calvin999, Lugnuts, SNUGGUMS, Rlendog, Gloss, and Rhododendrites: @Cirt, Lukeno94, Kww, Status, Suriel1981, Michael Bednarek, and 3family6: All of you participated in the previous AfD and are invited back for this one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Girl like Me (Rihanna album) as there is not sufficient coverage to warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album: I don't understand how any song not released as a single but only on an album would ever manage to pass NSONGS as it currently stands, but it's a moot issue in this case, as I could not find any substantial coverage of this song in any sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, single release ≠ notability, and non-single release ≠ lack of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't accept that distinction, but this is not the place to bring up the issue.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, I realized that I totally agree with you. I'm too tired, up to late, should go to bed.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album – A favorite song of mine from A Girl Like Me but alas, it fails WP:GNG. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album: fails to meet WP:NSONGS, or even come close to being notable by WP:GNG: none of the four reviews spend more than a partial sentence on the song in the course of discussing the album. I'm surprised this was listed as a GA; the first paragraph of the Recording and composition section is a prose rendering of the Credits and personnel section, and I don't see how the article is "broad in its coverage", a GA requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there's an issue with the GA process for this and similar articles. I've dropped a note on the GA talkpage so more users are aware of this. If I was pushed for K/D/R, I'd say keep based on WP:GNG. That's if I was pushed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that there was a failure of the GA process here.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album - Of course it fails, as there are no sufficient coverage other than sources leading to album reviews and other facts; no way would this have passed GA review with relying upon a single type of source. IPadPerson (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album or delete I learned about this discussion by the notice on the GA directory Talk page. I read the article and entire GA review, and checked each of the sources. There are not very many sources and those that are present don't provide much reference to this song, leading to my decision. I agree with the lack of notability. However, I can see how this passed GA and I do believe it (barely) met GA criteria, so I don't believe there is a failure of the GA process. Did you know that notability is not mentioned on Wikipedia:Good article criteria? I have just raised that as an issue on the Good article criteria Talk page. Note: I will ensure this article's entry is removed from the GA directory if consensus decides to delete or redirect. Prhartcom (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete - On the condition that members of the Rihanna Wikiproject are permitted to merge the content of this song article into a pre-existing or new sub section of the parent album prior to the article being replaced with a redirect link to the album article. I.E., giving us time to extract the relevant points easily and quickly. This article does technically pass GNG, NSONGS and GAN for that matter, but I accept as the creator and writer of the article and the person who nominated it for GA status that it may not be as detailed or long enough to satisfy some editors, which is why I am voting redirect. Once again, @Chasewc91:, I would like to point out that it is an irrelevant point to make that it only charted at number 38 in Spain. Spain has a national singles chart and is just as important, valid and reliable as any other nations singles charts. It doesn't matter which nations singles chart, or what position, a chart is a chart. — ₳aron 10:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, I'd recommend adding the content of these pages to a sub-page of your user page, in order to preserve it for merging into the appropriate album articles.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. I change my vote then; there's no point in it taking up Wikipedia space as a redirect. — ₳aron 09:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per everyone above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent album. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:27, 17 November 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:Jimfbleak as a copyvio. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk to me 16:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka-Brazil Relations[edit]

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

It has been copied from various online sources such as http://srilankaembassy.com.br/Sri_Lanka-Brazil_Relations.html and http://www.ft.lk/2014/08/23/historic-lanka-vietnam-trade-link-established-in-hanoi/ Anton^Talk 02:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12. No issue if it's a recreated, with the copyvio and it meets WP:G, of course. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of instant noodle brands. While it's true that the nominator has been sock-blocked, the nomination seems reasonable and has in fact gathered a consensus to delete. czar's redirect suggestion makes sense, and I don't get the feeling that any of the people arguing to delete would object, so that's what I'm going to do. I am wondering if describing the article as underfed is just a typo, or some clever pun -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Noodles[edit]

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

Unreferenced since seven and a half years. There are a few sources like this but seems to me to fail product notability. What do you think? Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons stated by Why should I have a User Name?. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being unrefed is not a valid deletion reason. If WP:BEFORE shows no RS refs, then that is a valid deletion reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of instant noodle brands. Being underfed is not a valid deletion reason.
- "Instant soups have been around for decades. ... Mr. Noodles is the most popular and one of the worst nutritionally."

"Swap it Instant Soup Replay." National Post. Aug 27 2011. via PQ

"LIPTON SOUPWORKS OR CAMPBELL'S HEARTY NOODLE Both of these are an improvement over the once-ubiquitous Mr. Noodles, now "banned" from many schools."

Cameron, Louise. "Naked Lunch: Labels 101." The Globe and Mail. Oct 28 2006. via PQ

It's used as a Canadian stand-in for ramen. "In a pinch, they'd open a Mr. Noodles (instant noodles), pour hot water on it and yum, dinner!" "You end up buying a lot of really bad things like Kraft Dinner and Mr. Noodles, anything that can be done quickly and cheaply. It's so bad for you." In any case, it would be redirected to the list of instant soups before it is deleted outright. I can't find super (souper?) sources on this but I'm also not as familiar with Canadian publications or foodspace. While we can confirm that it exists, we know little else around it. That makes it a fine redirect target for our purposes. czar ⨹ 04:03, 24 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forever & Always[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Not only does it lack significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that aren't album reviews, but there also is not enough information to expand beyond a stub. The secondary sources used only briefly mention it, and the other sources are primary sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fearless (Taylor Swift album). All major information about the song is already included there. Chart positions are included at Taylor Swift discography. There's really no need for this content fork that fails NSONG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it made the Billboard Hot 100 twice at no.34, the song is discussed in the context of the singer's relationships, not just mentioned, in bios by Riley Brooks (2010), Frankie Taylor (2013), Melissa Higgins (2012), G Whiz (2014), Wayne Wheelwright (2013), Louisa Jepson (2013), Sarah Parvis (2009) from just the first page of Google Book results, another 7 books on the second page including James E. Perone The Album 2012 which isn't about Taylor Swift. User:SNUGGUMS did you do a Google Book search before issuing this AfD? The multiplicity of bios of Swift may be cookie cutter pulp, but the Perone book doesn't appear to be. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is NOT an automatic indicator of notability. Songs also need to be discussed outside of album reviews. As for the books you mention.....

The books from Riley Brooks, Frankie Taylor, Melissa Higgins, G Whiz, Wayne Wheelright, and Louisa Jepson each only give it one sentence
The Sarah Parvis book only gives it four sentences total
James E. Perone's book is an album review of Fearless, and WP:NSONGS states that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. It only gives one paragraph on the song, anyway.

Therefore, this song doesn't warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IIO. -- Calidum 03:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Chase, Snuggums and nominator. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per In ictu oculi. If I had time, I'd work on expanding the article because it obviously passes notability. It's quite unfortunate it's at the state it is in now, but that's not a reason for deletion. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth adding that it was a top forty hit, and sold over 1 million copies in the US, despite not being a single. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable (perhaps barely but clearly). If the guidelines indicate otherwise (not convinced that they do but others seem to think so) then the guidelines need tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is currently an RM open for this article, which should IMO not be closed as move until this AfD is closed but that's all that is now stopping the move, which is in the backlog the normal discussion period having expired. So if this closes as keep please give a heads-up at the RM on this article's talk page. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 23 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Flying Instructor (India)[edit]

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

Delete, qualified flying instructor is a rather ambiguous term in use in generic ways. Originally nominated as spam and deleted, recreated and then declined so here we are. At most a redirect is appropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable or possibly redirect to Qualified Flying Instructor, nothing different about the use of QFI in India then elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why does this need a stand-alone article? Also Qualified Flying Instructor cites no references? Are either of these notable?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable under WP:GNG as lacks significant coverage. Anotherclown (talk) 20:21, 21 November 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. Secret ^account 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brigham[edit]

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

Run of the mill minor league player. There is some coverage but not enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Yankees10 03:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Can't find anything on the Internet. This is the most substantial non-routine thing I could find. Doesn't pass GNG. Alex (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this: [55]. Changing vote to 'weak delete', though I'm considering 'weak keep'. Two in-depth pieces seems fairly notable. Alex (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Wizardman 14:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IKA-Works[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:Corp, I can only find listings on business directories and the corp website. No significance or claim to notability is included in the article. Even the parent company does not seem to meet notability requirements for inclusion. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Highbeam search turns up various product announcements in trade publications, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be that the parent company, IKE-Werke, may be more notable. Says they've been around since 1910, they have a , I see that they got some sort of award at this source. I'm not all that convinced that they are notable at this point, but IKA-Werke has a better case than IKA-Works. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 04:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the German-language secondary sources from the german article, for convenience (I don't speak German, so I'm just going off Google Translate: Story about a strike from their workers, Something trouble during their 100th anniversary, They had a successful year in 2012. These are all from Badische Zeitung. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 04:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with AllyD nothing that would qualify this corp to have its own article.VViking_TalkEdits 23:30, 16 November 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Boss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although there are some sources presented, most, if not all, aside from FEC filings, are simply local reports that are usually compulsory for them to report on. Running for office as a perennial candidate, and being a promoter of conspiracy theories is not notable. Gage (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The fact that he ran for office does not itself make him notable, no, and I don't think he would be a keep on WP:POLITICIAN grounds, but the sources about him for the various political endeavors as well as his conspiracy theorizing collectively appear to be sufficient to get by WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have consistently favored keeping articles about U.S. presidential candidates who have appeared on official state ballots, including fringe candidates. He has received enough significant coverage to pass the GNG, as shown by the links brought forward in the 3rd AfD debate, which was closed decisively as "keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current sources are not the best (per nom) but he is covered in Campaigns & Elections, Vice and the book, Occupying Wall Street. Enough to satisfy GNG in my opinion. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, he's the nut job perennial candidate who runs under the "NSA did 911" label, but he keeps on getting reliable coverage and the article supports that. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has appeared on least a handful of state ballots in presidential elections, and has just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, as demonstrated in different comments above.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Agree that there's enough coverage to make the guy notable; and hey, since the NSA is preventing him from getting any other press we might as well keep the page up as long as it stays NPOV. Dramamoose (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] http://www.wqxr.org/ http://www.wqxr.org/#!/hosts/. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] "The Recap Fashion Night Out from NY". ShopBop.com. ShopBop.

[3] "Shopbop at Fashion's Night Out: Alex Young". Shop Bop.

[4] Roe, Louise. "Fashion's Night Out Live on Shopbop.com". ShopBop.

[Berczeller-5] Berczeller, Paul (2004-09-06). "The man who lost his past". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-08-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[6] "Emotional reunion for Iranian family at Vancouver airport". CBC News. 2007-03-15. Retrieved 2012-05-12.

[7] London Free Press

[8] Bleacher Report

[9] Yahoo Sports

[10] Bloody Elbow

[11] The 2nd Annual Stitcher Awards!

[12] Jonathan Hassell [1]

[13] Top10 [2]

[14] Windows IT Pro [3]

[15] Softpedia [http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Remote-Utils/GoverLAN-Remote-Control.shtml ]

[16] Tech Target [4]

[17] BIMmuse [http://bimmuse.com/2013/09/09/goverlan-remote-administration/ Insurance Tech: http://www.insurancetech.com/pj-technologies-releases-goverlan-remote-administration-suite-v7/d/d-id/1311382?]

[18] SPIE.DigitalLibrary [5]

[19] ScienceDirect [6]

[20] US Patents [7]

[21] SpringerLink [8]

[22] Concentrated Tech "Remote Support Solutions" http://www.concentratedtech.com/SiteAssets/CompareScope-Goverlan-RemoteSupport.pdf]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]