Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 November	3 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 Technical close. AfD has been redirected and closed, but this still shows up in "old AfDs needing closure". Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Underground Storyteller

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Trotter[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet any of notability guidelines for biographical articles. Rotten regard 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination came a solid seven minutes after article creation. Looks like there's well over 100 articles on Wikipedia that use this author as a reference. Clearly somebody out there thinks he's notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me which notability guidelines he meets, where is the significant coverage talking about this person? Being a journalist doesn't make a person notable unless there is significant coverage written about them. --Rotten regard 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Passes WP:GNG due to extensive coverage in multiple media sources. A Google news search yeilds over 1,000 articles alone. Authorship of I Love Oklahoma/I Hate Texas lends to the material, as well as him being referenced in several scholarly papers What's Said in This Locker Room, Stays in This Locker Room and The NCAA Should Adopt a Uniform Student-Athlete Discipline Policy. All of these items are easily found by clicking the links provided above in the nomination's "Find sources" section. Please complete WP:BEFORE (specifically sections C and D) next time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links indicate he doesn't come close to meeting the GNG, as he hasn't won any significant awards as a writer and no one has written extensively about him --Rotten regard 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the first batch, but here are some additional references.

Rock Chalk Nation provides references as an expert
Sports Radio 560 interviews Jake Trotter for his expertise
Ty Hildenbrandt & Dan Rubenstein Big 12 Preview with Jake Trotter
Dallas Morning News quotes Jake Trotter as an expert on the Big 12
OklahomaSports.com talks with Jake Trotter on the subject of Big 12 football
LandThieves reviews Jake Trotter's book Why I Love Oklahoma & Hate Texas with excerpt
KFOR News Channel 4 Quotes Jake Trotter on Ben Grogan's successful field goal during an eqrthquake
The Lost Ogle article on The Oklahoman's newspaper writers going to ESPN, including Jake Trotter
Sooner Nation interviews Jake Trotter
Tulsa World Provides links to Jake Trotter's ESPN story base
West Virginia Mountaineers interview with Jake Trotter
Eer Sports ESPN's Jake Trotter Picks West Virginia to Upset Baylor
WIBW mentions Jake Trotter as a topic expert
Cincinati.com Interviews Jake Trotter as an expert

Some of those are "just fan blogs" but many are news sources (like WIBW and KFOR and Tulsa World and Cincinati.com) and many in-between. There are thousands more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources listed above by Paul McDonald establish that the subject is notable and passes WP:GNG.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul MacDonald.ShulMaven (talk) 01:45, 4 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. Nom withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Granat (Boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, does not come close to meeting either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hasn't done anything in his pro career to justify an article, but may scrape through WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out he's a two-time gold-winner in the Swedish Championship, too. I added references to state radio, two national newspapers, and one major regional newspaper. Stamboliyski (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the digging AND updating the article. Clearly meets WP:NBOX with the Swedish championship, and I think crosses the threshold for WP:GNG. I would now say Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:NBOX and GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still need work though. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:19, 6 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. It appears the article has undergone some improvements since this AFD was started, and two of the four sources cited do provide sufficient coverage, giving more weight to the 'keep' arguments here. Even if I closed this as "no consensus" the status quo (the article continuing to exist) would remain. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paynes Poppets[edit]

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

I have been questioning whether this deserved a Wikipedia article for ages - not since reading the article, since buying the product in my local Farmfoods. What clinched checking for me was seeing it linked from Toffifee, which is now being advertised in the UK. At best this is of questionable factual accuracy (their pisspoor excuse of a website refutes the claims that this they are now known as Toffifee and that their offices are in Croydon), at worst this is of very questionable notability. If this ends in delete, I will also be AfDing Toffifee. Laun chba ller 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional and without any sources since a long time. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Pre-war confectionery that has lasted for 75 years. If we have articles on confectionery, this is the sort of product we should be covering. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are a lot of tantilising passing mentions in Gbooks as can be seen here. Some coverage in The Independent, DesignWeek, JTdale ^Talk 10:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mentions"? I've read this somewhere... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those refs now added to the article are substantial, reliable and third party - pretty much ending this afd as a meaningful discussion. Szzuk (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of affection for these because they were around when I was a kid. They are still around now! This afd looks a bit like trying to delete mars bars or snickers... Szzuk (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the added sources barely reach GNG, and [4], despite being the Daily Mail, provides some additional margin. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense; GNG is "has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources". The Daily Mail does not provide additional margin.--Laun chba ller 21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the Daily Mail is a reliable source, will you be taking Zinoviev letter to AfD as well? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte Even with the added sources, the referencing is trivial and does not show show notability. Rathe the fact that theeare the things talked about in connection with the firm offers a fairly good prove of non-notabillity. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep The article on Fox's Confectionery doesn't seem to cover the subject of Paynes Poppets in any detail beyond having it listed in the Products section and would benefit from the merger. The alternative is to either keep the article as is, or to redirect the page—with its history intact—to Fox's Confectionery. I strongly oppose deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose merging to Fox's. Notability for these would seem founded on their longevity: yet they've only been part of Fox's for the last decade. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs improvement but it has references, and has been around over 70 years (and I remember them from 30 years ago). I'm surprised the proposer picked on these first, rather than on Toffifee which is a much weaker article (less information, less history, younger product). KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much worse product, as well, but I don't like nuts and WP:I don't like it is not a reason for deletion. I was feeling quite irritated at the time that I had spent years pronouncing it Toffifay (from Family Guy: The Movie) and apparently it is pronounced Toffifee, and decided that my judgment was too clouded at the time to make a level-headed decision. I did say I was only going to AfD Toffifee if this was deleted but if you are suggesting that Toffifee is more likely to end up in delete, are you suggesting that I AfD regardless of the outcome of this?--Laun chba ller 19:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I was "suggesting that".. you .. "AfD regardless of the outcome of this", but I would say it is unrelated and a much stronger case. The only thing that give me pause is it has a surprising number of edits from such a non article! I certianly would not have voted keep on Toffifee, and probably would vote 'Weak delete' (not that I poke around AfD as much as I probably should) - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Even if it results in a keep, the AfD will almost certainly result in cleanup. The encyclopedia benefits either way.--Laun chba ller 19:38, 11 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

François Frossard[edit]

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

Article about a Miami based architect and designer, written by a single-issue editor, with no independent/reliable sources. Despite an online search I can find no evidence to back up the claim of being leader of a movement. Frossard seems to be involved in the interior design and revamp of nightclubs and resorts which hasn't brought him a high profile. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 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, czar ♔ 21:54, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuay Teow Kua Gai[edit]

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

This is a recipe, not an encyclopedia article. I PROD'd this originally, but the author de-PROD'd it without explanation. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oilzayo22820. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a merge to Char kway teow (specifically Variations section ) possible because they are both stir-fried kway teow noodles? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this one says Thai food while the one you indicate no. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Char kway teow#Variations already has one-liners mentioning existence of Vietnamese and Thai similar dishes. Suggest one-liner: "Kuay Teow Kua Gai is a Thai variant with chicken. (cite)" and done. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking there since yesterday but I'm not able to see the Thai version. Am I the fool of the neighbourhood? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 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, Dennis - 2¢ 17:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted and now I'm pinging Kudpung, who knows the language and culture, and might be able to shed some light here. Dennis - 2¢ 17:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, and others: First off and on a point of order, I have not been able to find where policy disallows articles on food provided they are duly referenced according to guidelines and I have added a couple of cats. That said, the article should certainly be rewritten so as not to appear as a simple 'how to' recipe, and the author given to understand how to (pun?) write for Wikipedia.

This is a very common, simple Thai fried chicken noodle dish, and Thai cuisine is generally made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of minor variations of just a few dozen basic dishes. When I say common, I mean as in baked-beans-on-toast for the Brits, so there is nothing particularly outstanding about it meaning that the Thais would probably not bother to make an entry for it in the Thai Wikipedia. There are dozens of Thai language GHITS for it. Keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 27 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, czar ♔ 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. As Kudpung mentioned, no valid rationale for deletion was given. Regarding merging, there are a whole lot of articles about Southeast-Asian noodle variants which need sorting out, but that is not within the scope of this AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Mosley Jr.[edit]

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

This boxer doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NBOX, WP:INHERIT - Boxer who had his first fight this year. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Has not fought in a national or international title fight and has not been ranked top10. Being the son of a notable boxer does not make him noteworthy. - Taketa (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Family does not create notability per WP:INHERIT. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX with no significant coverage or boxing achievements. Notability is not inherited from his father and the article appears to have been created by someone with a COI ("created article on Shane").Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamzah Adnan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator, because they did not understand the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY - Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for an independent article, and do not meet the WP:NFOOTY specific criteria of playing in a fully professional league, or having played a senior international match. - Taketa (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC
Comment - @Sir Sputnik: please list the two articles seperately. The last double nomination you made, and that I participated in, the arguments for both articles were different, the second article got ignored by the comments and by the admin, and I had to relist it. - Taketa (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Taketa: - the fact that the closing admin of a previous AFD seemingly ignored the fact that two articles were bundled into one AFD is an issue you should raise with that admin - it should not prevent further bundling. Giant Snowman 13:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:02, 3 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. Same applies to second article too. IJA (talk) 15:12, 5 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) 16:38, 5 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. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa)[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, Not a single reference or citation, Stand alone list What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, cannot and will not be improved, AS a large totally unsourced lengthy-unconsise list it Lacks notability of lists Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. Wikipeida does have many bibliographies and lists that are justified for inclusion, these lists are generally short, they have citations, they point back to ISBN and equivalents, and many times they have been used to support Wikipedia articles, this list has no meaning because it lacks organization, it is face-value-unattributed-information that cannot be organized, this list is also original research. A small list of important works on this could be included, there is no way to find out which are the notable books for inclusion without conducting extensive research on the subject. The list appears to be an entire library catalog that has been copied from some unknown source, or is original research. Sometimes having less information provides more information, quality vs. quantity. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @nom see Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Unless you're saying "works about the Tonga people" is not a notable subject (i.e. that insufficient sources exist which talk about "works about the Tonga people", regardless of whether they're presently cited), I don't understand the policy this AfD is based in. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a list of hundreds of entries without any citation or differentiation, the list itself is meaningless. Please review the list and do a search above for "find sources," and you will see that the article is unsupportable.. Did you read the list, look at the entry, and do a find sources? --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Not enough support to include only those entries that are independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. WP:NOTESAL-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:LISTN: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

Whereas lists of examples which are not intended to be complete, like a list of bands or a list of alumni, are almost always limited to notable entries, that's not an absolute for lists -- and bibliographies are a good example of when that's simply not the case.

As with all AfDs based on notability (and this addresses some of your comments elsewhere, too) -- sources do not have to be cited in the article, but only need to exist for something to be considered notable, and it's the responsibility of the nominator to have searched for them before nominating. The question here is whether a bibliography of the Tonga people is notable, which would require the existence of sources that consider collective works about the Tonga people (other bibliographies, for example).

Sources: Tonga: A New Bibliography; [taken from the biblio itself] Turner, Beryl. 1983. Bibliography of the Kafue Flats. University of Zambia: Kafue Basin Research Committee.; A Bibliography of Fiji, Tonga, and Rotuma, Tonga bibliography at everyculture.com, AnthroGlobe Bibliography: Bibliography of Tonga, Encyclopedia of the Nations - Tonga bibliography, Tonga Timeline, Tonga section of An International Bibliography of African Lexicons, Ida Emily Leeson bibliographical notes, Bibliography of Tonga focused on Mormonism, huge bibliography at anu.edu.au....

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies has more information. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, Just which of the hundreds of random entries are notable? This list is meaningless. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You of course have the option to improve the entry to counter the concern.Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate Student Dissertation, illustrative why the hundreds of items listed within are not notable.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this has dialogue has run its course. See above. Individual items' notability has no bearing on AfD. Might be a good idea to prune some, sure, but that's irrelevant here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – an item belongs on the list if it is a Bibliography of the Tonga. Nothing random or indiscriminate about it. Oculi (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Topic is notable and the article can be sourced to independent, reliable, third-party sources. That said, the list in its current form is useless and will remain so until it sorted by topic and (hopefully) annotated. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:07, 6 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 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian stone-throwing[edit]

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

This is simply a neologisms, just a collection of random sources. We could just as well have an article on Israeli child killing, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jinkinson just actually redirected your fictionally-illustratively-absurd-link which rightly points out the absurdity of this topic to the more neutral and inclusive Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, do you want a large picture or a detail? Not redirecting it would encourage its creation at some later date.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Stone-throwing is not a neologism.ShulMaven (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stone-throwing has been embraced as a tactic and a social form of expression by Palestinian youth. The issue has received much media attention over the years and especially lately. So notable. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of coverage about this in the article and easily accessible in the first few pages of ghits. In fact, here's a story posted just today by RT about how Israel passed a law to contend with this very phenomenon. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also wanted to add to my previous commentary that there are many sources. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Palestinians, see Gaza Strip, definitely use asymmetric tactics to cast themselves falsely as the victim through the absorption of collateral damage (unnecessary loss of civilian life). This information exists elsewhere and is redundant. There are other concerns with this article that need to be addressed including the use of Wikipedia as a platform for special-interest. These may be news stories, and opinions, but they need not be included in an encyclopedia. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to say that your first sentence looks very forum-like to me. Of course it's your choice, while you don't offend anybody. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created a forum-like comment intentionally, the article itself is a forum-like entry and that is in part why it needs to be deleted. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfrankbalm: Redundant to what article? If the article has POV issues, tag it as such, take it up on the talk page, and if need be take it to WP:NPOVN, but that shouldn't matter to AfD. Likewise an analysis or opinion on the tactic/phenomenon itself is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether it is sufficiently covered in reliable sources. If there are sufficient news stories, that and not the opinion of our editors, determines what's included in the encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the many entries that relate to this contentious topic. This is a subset of information already covered in at least SEVEN! existing Wikipeida articles based on a Google Search.22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk)

Which? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian stone-throwing" site:en.wikipedia.org --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Inherently tendentious, as would be an article called Israeli gun shooting coatracking violence perpetrated by the Israeli side in this ongoing civil war. Carrite (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Unecyclopedic and POV, per Carrite and User:Lfrankbalm. This application of stoning is a subset of Israeli occupation and Palestinian resistance and belongs in a relevant article on that subject.Bjenks (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because here is the lede to Stoning: "Stoning, or lapidation, is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues." An entirely different topic.ShulMaven (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because: Palestinian stone-throwing, a phenomenon closely associated with the First Palestinian Intifada], has been the subject of scholarly analysis in the among students of the Arab-Israeli conflict, of the development of Palestinian identity, and of asymmetric warfare. In addition, of course, to being part of the conflict itself. See not only the extensive list of articles that link to this article, but the number of articles by contemporary journalists dedicated to the topic, of which Amira Hass' Inner syntax of Palestinian stone-throwing [5] is perhaps the most iconic.ShulMaven (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-as mentioned it is adequately an redundantly covered elsewhere per your find on the First Palestinian Intifada] above.. perhaps we should throw stones at Wikipedia so the same things can be said many times in many venues.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no because: Palestinian stone throwing is ongoing phenom, not confined to First IntifadaShulMaven (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned it can be found 'at least SEVEN TIMES', the consensus seems to be keep so I am sure the article will be kept.. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument by ShulMaven is completely correct, and this subject is not confined to the First Intifada and clearly deserves its own article. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess then Stone-throwing by undercover Israeli combatants should soon be an article, too? Interesting subject, no? Huldra (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of wide use of the term, phenomena, tools, etc.: 92,600 results (-wikipedia)+9,470 - "Palestinian throw stones"+[30,300 - "Arabs throw stones" - somebody may check the part of Palestinians in this search] + 312 (books) - "Palestinian stone-throwing"+1,170 (books) - "Palestinians throw stones"... IMHO, this only is already enough. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So there are 9,470 hits for "Palestinian stone throwing" (+wikipedia). Guess what: there are 211 000 google-hits for "kill the Arabs" (+wikipedia). Lots of international reports about crowds in Jlem and Tel Aviv shouting it. I guess Kill the Arabs! will be your next article, then? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"9,470 "Palestinian throw stones" - (not+) wikipedia" was only addition for "92,600 results".
You may compare 211k for your "kill the Arabs" -(!)wikipedia)" results with 338k for "kill the Jews" -wikipedia one.
Similar:
- 554k for "death to the Jews"+104k death to Jews versus
- 190k "death to the Arabs"+68.3k "death to Arabs"
So? Moreover, only an absolute minority of Jews act with such calls and they just dispersed by police. Can you give similar data for the Arabs and their official heads, say in the PNA, Gaza and other Arab countries? --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord. I just noticed that my above suggestion for article creation, Israeli child killing..is no longer red-linked. <facepalm> Huldra (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ghits are indeed not a good measure of notability. What is a good measure is the amount of coverage the subject gets in reliable sources, and as demonstrated above that coverage exists. "Kill the Arabs" is a phrase rather than a concept, and Palestinian stone-throwing is not a run of the mill activity such that you could put any group of people before "stone-throwing" and find sources talking about it as a subject (not just using the phrase). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agree about one thing: Ghits are not a good measure of notability. But I don´t understand how you can argue that "Kill the Arabs" is "just" a phrase: no, it is not, not when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of WP:RS sources reporting on groups shouting it. That is an act, just as stone-throwing is an act. And hardly a run of the mill act, either. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove non-notable incidents. Sources seem to indicate that this is a thing. But the article shouldn't be a memorial to people killed by stones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised to see this up for deletion - it's a very well known part of the conflict, and a specific type of violence in the conflict – we have articles on several other specific types of violence, including Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces, the Price tag policy, Israeli settler violence, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, so I see no reason why this commonplace one should be ignored. Number 5 7 21:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that inclusion of hateful topics does not imply any endorsement of their utility nor of the ideology; Wikipedia should not be censored without a very strong reason. Based on the available sources, no reasonable person could disagree that this is a notable topic. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a method of rioting by Palestinians for years. Its covered by the press constantly and has been ongoing for many years. To me this meets all the criteria for an article. - Galatz (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I just wrote on the article's talk page (with references), Ed Said said when he was photographed throwing rocks at an Israeli checkpoint, that it was symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. So at least for some, including Said, throwing stones into Israel and at Israelis is a "symbolic gesture." That means it is more than simple rockthrowing and warrants an article of its own. The article does need some work, though. Gearsagnes (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe this is even being debated... Djcheburashka (talk) 01:15, 10 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Stewart (soccer player)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER; never played in a fully professional league. No 3rd party sources that show notability per WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any reliable sources, mainly due to two more famous soccer and football players. Considering his age and that he playes in the USL Premier Development League, an amateur league, it is highly unlikely he passes WP:GNG. He has not played in a Fully professional league or senior international FIFA match and thus also fails WP:NFOOTY. - Taketa (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played fully professionally fails WP:NFOOTY. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 02:22, 5 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) 15:13, 5 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. Also appears to fail WP:NCOLLATH for his college career. Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 5 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Mendiola[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:02, 3 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) 15:13, 5 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) 16:37, 5 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)[edit]

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

There are no notable sources stating that the show has been ordered to series and the twiiter account referenced for the series order is not an official one. Babar Suhail (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, unless it comes to series, we don't create articles for pilots. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. — Wylie pedia 21:10, 3 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. Wily D 10:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biggar Road[edit]

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

There is no point on having a VERY short article about a not well known hamlet in North Lanarkshire. The article has an infobox with some details, but that's about it. No matter how much information could be found about Biggar Road, it is still a waste of time to have an article on it. DrDevilFX (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:NPLACE: "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities." --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah I never read WP:NPLACE. Anyway, the only source of Biggar Road I have found existing as a settlement is Google Maps. --DrDevilFX (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does not appear to be a recognised settlement. I can find no evidence of a sign announcing one has arrived in it, which is our usual standard for articles on British settlements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: We will need to decide whether Biggar Road should be deleted or kept.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrDevilFX (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be just a road off a B road in Cleland, North Lanarkshire. The North Lanarkshire Council website gives it minimal attention, with just mention of a playpark on that road in Cleland. No evidence that it is considered as a place in its own right. It is already briefly mentioned in the Cleland article and that seems sufficient. AllyD (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Cleland, North Lanarkshire article does NOT mention any settlement/village named Biggar Road. The Cleland village itself is partly defined by extending to a point on Biggar Road, the road. There is no support there of any "location" being termed Biggar Road. --do ncr am 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or perhaps redirect to Cleland, North Lanarkshire, IF someone can document that Biggar Road is a sub-settlement of the village of Cleland. Note the Cleland article does not support that yet...the Cleland article mentions Biggar Road as a street like other streets that it mentions, not as any settlement. The Keep vote argument by User:Sammy1339 above seems to be invalid, because they cite from wp:NPLACE about places having a legally recognized government, which Biggar Road apparently does not have. --do ncr am 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've solved the mystery. This is a village called Biggar. Which is not in Cleland. And this is a road called Biggar. Which is in Cleland. So the article should be renamed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well there are two places in the U.K. named Biggar actually, Biggar, a village in Cumbria and Biggar, a town and former burgh in South Lanarkshire, each of which already have articles. Perhaps Biggar Road in North Lanarkshire is named for the possible fact that it goes towards Biggar in South Lanarkshire (just guessing whether it goes towards there). The two plus also Biggar Road are listed within List of United Kingdom locations: Bi, a list-article of locations that has no sources given whatsoever. ~~Perhaps an AFD for List of United Kingdom locations: Bi would be in order...~~(i was not serious about that). And, Biggar Road is still not established as being a place, despite being listed in List of United Kingdom locations. :( --do ncr am 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being, in fact, a road. I also removed it from the list. @Doncram: Don't AfD the damn list. I cannot understand this fetish for deleting lists. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, striking that comment about deleting List of United Kingdom locations: Bi. I wasn't serious about that. I am actually a big supporter / past developer of list-articles...they help a lot, including by serving as good places to redirect not-separately-notable items to, often. --do ncr am 01:59, 3 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) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kool-Aid Point[edit]

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

My own concern is that this is in violaton of Wikpedia is not a dictonary, specifically when providing definitons of neologisms. I have been told this is notable, I have been told this is not notable. I think this is time to discuss. VeryCrocker (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary item--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, WP:NEO. Libby norman (talk) 23:59, 9 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 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization of United States[edit]

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

Intrinsically POV title and unnecessary POV split from Anti-Americanism. Over the top highly POV piece of non-encyclopedic original research which relies on synthesis of sources. Also a WP:COATRACK created to make a political WP:POINT as part of some propaganda war. Demonization is not even a neutral term. Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator was also the article creator. Safiel (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I nominated this article for deletion based on the opinion of multiple other editors. I am uncertain if they are right, but I hope that getting opinion from more editors will result with consensus grounded in wikipedia policies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary fork from anti-americanism without useful content that can be merged into that article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Strong Keep - However, a review of the article has to occur to assure that it is not original research. The article may just need some work.. I would like it to remain so it can be worked on. The work itself will reveal whether or not it will rise to the necessary standard. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfrankbalm: Can you clarify how the topic is distinct from that of anti-Americanism? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-The article is framed as a "propaganda tactic or strategy" and it is a visible dynamic in China and elsewhere. The first paragraph of Anti-Americanism contrasts sharply whereby anti-Americanism is not a consistent phenomenon whereas this dynamic is a consistent matter of state policy. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing why it would fork from anti-Americanism. There's already an article about the propaganda technique Demonizing the enemy, so this would be an article about a particular application of that technique -- which is then clearly redundant to Anti-Americanism. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork of Anti-Americanism. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all paranoid delusions are notable fringe theories. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as [6]. Volunteer Marek 02:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge & redirect to Anti-Americanism; falls within the scope of the article Anti-Americanism. No need for an additional article, especially one with a non-neutral title.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's anything in the article that's both well-sourced and absent from Anti-Americanism, it should be recycled. Leaving a redirect is unnecessary. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge I find the title loaded – a clear point of view before you start reading, and the succeeding copy seems to mix and match US and the West as if they are one and the same. I also feel there is synthesis at play here. I agree that it should be examined to pick out suitable references that might be used in other articles, such as Anti-Americanism. Libby norman (talk) 00:16, 10 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. The 'keep' proponents (primarily single-purpose accounts) failed to advance any argument grounded in Wikipedia policy. No objection to restoring the article in the event that the book garners significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium Traditional Catechism[edit]

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

I have not found any reference that could prove the notability of this book. The references provided in the article itself, except for a link to the Amazon page of the product, do not cite the book at all. I've opened this AfD discussion to ascertain whether the book is notable enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. LowLevel73^(talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you obsessed with Deliting this Post?? You also Erased my prior comments!!! Why? Why are you so interested in deleting this post??--Aroniel2 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Book is new, less than one year old. Still several Cardinals and Bishops have it, including Cardinal Burke. This book is having great success in England where conservative Anglicans are moving back to the Catholic Church. PLEASE do not listen to LowLevel 173!! He or she is just Obsesed!! This book is the Cathechism with guidance and commentary from EXTREMELY important people including Popes, Cardinals, etc, etc. --Aroniel2 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability standards outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (books) "A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary..." Spellsgood (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see third-party resources. Searching on this is difficult since the terms in the title have been used for various publications. It does not meet notability for individual books. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. After the Synod there is a lot of confusion about the true Catholic Doctrine. The Pope is not helping with his Ambiguous comments. Cardinal Kasper is creating a lot of confusion. Cardinal Burke is helping to defend true Catholic doctrine but he is only one voice among the multiple ones. This Compendium was approved by Bishop Fernando Rifan, the only Catholic Bishop dedicated to the Extraordinary Rite and is helping a lot of confused Catholics to understand true Catholic doctrine. Deleting this book with NOT help the Catholic Chuch but will HURTH it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.56.177 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not seem to be familiar with the purpose of Wikipedia, but in short, hurting or helping some cause or organization is irrelevant to the decision to include an article in Wikipedia. The policies for inclusion, albeit hard to quantify, are clearly spelled out in WP:NOTABILITY and other policies linked from there. Please read at least that page, and make your arguments here based on those policies. LaMona (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any mentions of this title either in America (Catholic magazine) or this news archive. There's nothing on Google Books either. Confabulationist (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HERE GOOGLE BOOK: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=CZoHAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA443&dq=Traditional+Catechism+Rifan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_t5gVLuNDrGv7AbduYGgCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Traditional%20Catechism%20Rifan&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.56.177 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book should NOT be deleted. It is a very important contribution to the understanding of Catholic teaching at a time of heightened debate and public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebuly (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete!

— Cjscafe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjscafe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. This Catechism is an oasis of sound traditional Catholic doctrine as it was always meant to be. With all the confusion going on the Church today, works like this help concerned Catholics maintain and nurture their faith, and provides the necessary apologetical tools to respond to the Kaspers and LowLevels173 bent on destroying our Faith.

— Edcruzwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcruzwiki (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd like to invite all of the new editors who created an account to oppose the article's deletion to stay and contribute meaningfully to other areas of the project even after the Compendium Traditional Catechism page is inevitably deleted due to its subject's failure to satisfy either WP:BK or WP:GNG. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article/entry as it is most relevant to all Catholics as a tenet of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyDeValois (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign that it is notable - no reference to actual work outside Amazon link. If the importance actually met the claim on both the article and here you would expect outside references. Similarity of name would suggest the article author is the book author so clear conflict of interest on the importance of the work. Also these 1 post 'keep' votes look like puppets, as does the single Amazon review. KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 11 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) Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College[edit]

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

per Wikipedia:Notability. recently established college. Avono♂ (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established in 2011, it presumably can be verified to exist, using English or Bengali or other language sources. Per usual outcomes on high schools at wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which presumably applies to higher levels too, this should be kept. Sure, tag for more sources to be added, if you like, or add more. --do ncr am 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The medical college is not recently established. It was established three years ago,back in 2011. The article should be kept. I am trying to add more relevant information and references to the article. Thanks.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominator probably didn't read WP:UNI/AG. In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia. – nafSadh did say 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:UNIGUIDE - As a college the subject is notable. Recently established does not negate this. No other problems with the article. - Taketa (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a accredited degree awarding medical college affiliated to the University of Dhaka.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid basis for deletion advanced by nom. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:49, 6 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 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Bootle[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, looks like a resume, her highest posting is consul general, ambassadors are not inherently notable, let alone consuls. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find news articles mentioning her in her political position, but nothing that rises to the level of notability. LaMona (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated by the above folks, the pickings are scarce. Her government positions don't provide presumed notability, and other coverage is of the routine variety. I found nothing other than the single reference in the article (the original is also still available online) --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:06, 8 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 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiddan[edit]

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

Unsourced and orphan since creation in 2008. No evidence of any notability. Was PRODded, then de-PRODded by the original creator without comment or article improvement. PamD 09:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 10:34, 26 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotinal article for a not notable topic. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not a lot to add to the above. The article itself has no references at all -- not even to support the minor statements of fact made therein. To say that coverage is scarce would be kind. There's nothing useful out there - just an occasional clone of the Wikipedia text, some old user comments in forums, and a blog or two. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:15, 8 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 BBC controversies. No consensus for outright deletion but not considered a notable topic in its own right. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Females in BBC Panel Shows[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. I'm pretty sure this could be merged somewhere, but this topic simply isn't independently notable. There are a few sources in the article, but I don't feel that this warrants an article (we don't even have an article on "BBC Panel show"). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Pure nonsense.~~ --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Why should I have a User Name?: Though WP:NONSENSE is a reason for [speedy] deletion, that implies incoherence. This is clearly coherent. Are you just saying the argument put forth by the sources is incorrect? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, I striked those words, which I wrote because the title did not look like a very reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article. After having a look at your sources, I decided to strike them. I will try to read those references in detail, when I have some time, then I may improve my standing. Thank you for the sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough for an article, and merge the content into one of the articles about the BBC (given that it is a BBC policy decision). Either the main BBC one, or Criticism of the BBC or BBC controversies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be a talking point. You could stick it on panel shows article if there was such an article. Surely these comediennes have livelihoods? It might not interest you, but that's not the same as nonsense? Slightnostalgia (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is "pretty sure this could be merged somewhere" but if we delete the page we can't merge it. See WP:MAD and WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as ... merging". Andrew (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It seems like this should possibly by Women in Panel Games or Gender Representation in British Panel games rather than the weird use of "females", but it seems a solid enough subjetc and worth expanding on, unless of course there;s someplace else it is already covered which it could be merged to. Artw (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Below are just from a couple pages of Google hits about the subject. There are more, and they're not all just about the February 2014 ban -- it's a topic people have been talking about for years. It should probably be renamed something like Panel show sexism in the United Kingdom or used to start an article all about Panel shows in the United Kingdom, but those are discussions separate from whether or not it should be deleted. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the nominator's comments above, I'm pretty sure this could be merged somewhere and per the sources sited by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs). Wikicology (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really an encyclopaedic subject and based on one person's comment. It got a lot of media coverage at the time, but that doesn't mean we should have an article about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Media coverage more or less determines what an encyclopedic subject is on Wikipedia, and the coverage is by many people over several years. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will find extensive media coverage on just about every issue regarding the BBC, that does not mean there should be an article for every issue. I feel the subject would be better served inside an article about the BBC and not as a standalone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am not withdrawing this AfD, I am not against a creation on an article on UK panel shows and the role of women in them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially agree with everything stated by Rhododendrites, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Television in the United Kingdom per WP:SS. This is a sub-sub-topic that is insufficiently developed for a standalone article. We would first need an article about such shows in the UK in general, or about women in UK television in general, before we can have an article about the intersection of the two. Pending that, the parent topic is the appropriate target for a merger in condensed form. Sandstein 10:20, 2 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. Relisted so Sandstein's ideas and other ideas can be explored. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be merged. Not notable for its own article Avono♂ (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable not encyclopedic, every bit of minutia does not need to have an entry in an encyclopedia, this entry is frankly ludicrous. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge item is of interest in the correct context, but it should not have an article of its own. Perhaps merge into Panel game? Shritwod (talk) 00:09, 4 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. Procedural keep as a bad faith nomination by a sock puppet. Non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edwards (composer)[edit]

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

~~Does not meet notability criteria. Bristolbottom (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't believe this to be a GF nomination and I believe the nominating editor to have been socking as Geoffreyofmonmouth.

This is one of a long list of AfD nominations of alumni of Bedford Modern School, mostly on the grounds of "just not notable". This recently knitted account has done nothing else. These nominations have no merit - many laughably so. It is not a positive contribution to the encyclopedia to simply trawl through a category and mindlessly tag each and every article for deletion in the hope that some of them stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete There's absolutely nothing that makes this person notable. Looks like just another exercise in self-promotion. Snowgoose07 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Snowgoose07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In your brief history here at WP, you've taken rather an unusual interest in Bristolbottom's AfDs. You share a similarly unconvincing line in "But he's just not notable" rhetoric. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keepNotability in his field is established by his inclusion in the ‘Dictionary of Composers for the Church in Great Britain and Ireland’ and the 'International Who's Who in Music and Musicians' Directory. I have added these references to the article and deleted the reference to ‘photographing busses and coaches’ which I suspect is an act of vandalism and, in any case, doesn’t contribute to it. Edwards has made a huge contribution to England’s fine tradition and excellence in choral music. This deletion seems like Wikipedia:I just don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoforchurchmusic (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the buses - they're in the original creation of this article by Hikitsurisan. People do have hobbies outside music. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Bristolbottom, Geoffreyofmonmouth and Snowgoose07 have all been blocked for sockpuppeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 7 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Umerle[edit]

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

Notability template removed without any improvement so I'll raise this to the Wikipedia community to decide. There's currently no hard proof of notability here (the best source is an exhibition catalogue, which is barely independent, and a very brief article about two of her paintings in New York). True, she has received several grants from the Arts Council, which can be seen as evidence they treat her as a serious artist. There are several single purpose accounts that have worked on this article, suggesting there may be promotion going on. Artist has an unusual name so you would think reviews and news coverage would be easy to find. I'm not convinced Umerle meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading through, I find little other than simple factual statements that appear to comply with NPOV guidelines. Article has been up here for four years and I have made several edits myself. It is improving slowly. I don't think it warrrants AfD.GoldAggar (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several sources on Google Books search. I think the fact that she began exhibiting in 1980 (pre-internet) could be a problem in establishing earlier sources. Nevertheless there are enough recent references to establish notability in this article - collections, exhibition record, awards, secondary sources. Jessops (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Meets WP:CREATIVE. "the person's work (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The article establishes its own relevence. NationalTreasure (talk) 17:01, 8 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 delete per WP:CSD#G4. Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahika Sharma[edit]

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

Recently discussed and deleted article re-made and my speedy delete tag removed by the creator of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) i remove the tag and i dnt create the page... We are hardcore fans of [Mahika Sharma] google her and read about her.. please stop creating issues. Man beter you enjoy your life bothering others. The page have maximum links to survive...

and remember I am not the creator of the page...

please dont delete the page..

Could an administrator kindly sanction this personal attack by the SPA? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dear [[User:why should I Have a user name? (talk) do i disturb or try to trouble in ur updates soo its irritating me than too sorry i dnt wish to hurt you.. but please let the page be alive. Hope you dont mind it. Take care and enjoy your changes and updates. Godbless you.
page Mahika Sharma should not deleted please look her links on google its notable.

In the previous deletion discussion about "Mahika sharma" I did not even vote. She is a lovely young woman and I see has some local notability. I am sure she will be notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia some day, but the current consensus is that she does not. Read WP:TOOSOON. Regarding your attitude of insulting this user and repeatedly removing AfD tags while it is clearly noted on them that they should not be removed, I hope will attract the attention of one or the other of our administrators and you will be warned -and I guess- blocked. While blocked learn at least how to sign your talk and a few other useful details. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:44, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Cyprus[edit]

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

Not notable title on an unnecessary list with only three items, of which none is called a war and only one (1974) can be considered as such. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose:

"This is a list of wars and conflicts that Armenia or Armenians have been involved in." (that started in 87BC!).
The wars and conflicts are all military fightings. The entitling "conflict" etc. to a war does not change the character of the events.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please oppose whatever you wish but be reasonable. Our Cyprus article is about a country independent since 1960 and even if you count that conflict, battle or whatever in 1964 as a "war" (it is not a war) then we have only 2 (two) items. Better save your energy to make other lists or developing other articles. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. This AFD is about List of wars involving Cyprus, not List of wars involving Armenia. User:Alexyflemming, could you please explain your "strong oppose"? Or perhaps it should be disregarded, as it seems to refer to a different article or possible AFD. --do ncr am 00:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very important historically (article could be expanded quit a bit)--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is very important? I am saying that there are not more than 1 and a half (or a quarter :-) war(s) in which this country was involved in its short existence. Please bring arguments, not rhetoric. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reply to my previous question, so change from "Comment" to "Keep". It seems a valid list-article topic. It is arguable whether many previous conflicts that involved states that included Cyprus should be included or not, or whether it should be kept limited to wars since Cyprus became separate, but that debate is for Talk page of article. I previously asked: Question: Can this be a section within Modern history of Cyprus? Maybe it does not need to be split out as a separate list-article. If it is a section there, or in Cyprus or another article, it can still be linked from the templates "List of wars involving European countries" and/or "List of wars involving Asian countries". --do ncr am 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely notable list which can be expanded considerably. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly with which non-existing wars, if I may kindly ask? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the ones which took place there between 8000 BCE and 19 February 1959. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have an article on the Island, but one on the Republic formed there in 1960. Look at other Wikipedias and you will see that many of them -some with much less contributors- do have the separate island article. Better use your time to write that article, because in this Wikipedia the island and the republic are used as one. When you add there a war in say 1938, will it be about the Republic of Cyprus which is used interchangeably here with Cyprus? Do we have a list of wars for example in which Crete or Rhodes were involved? I am sure the island of Rhodes has seen as many wars but we write these lists based on states, not geographically. Do you have examples that go against my words, please show me. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the list is not deleted and you expand it -as I understand you intend to- please don't forget to add the Flag of Cyprus in every war where Cyprus was involved... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see list of wars involving Armenia above. Also list of wars involving China, and I'm sure there are many similar lists. List of wars involving Crete does indeed still need to be written. But honestly, even without that, the three modern conflicts by themselves justify having this list. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's lots: Armenia, Austria, Greece, etc. But these lists must either assume inheritance or congruence with the modern state's borders. And that's....terrible. The extent of the island is an indisputable constant. Besides, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and all it'd take is some disclaimer at the top of the list that it's not about the state. ~~However, if there's no consensus for turning it into a list about the island, I'd be in favour of deleting, for the same reasons as User:Why should I have a User Name?'s.~~ 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Because history is important, Turkish history is very important these days see South Syria and the Ottoman Empire, ISIS, Greece and others. This is one of the rare Wikipeida articles that is actually concerned with fact. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all know history is important. Do you have any serious argument supporting your keep vote? Please don't remind me again that history is important, say new things. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Solid encyclopedic content; useful navigational aid. Carrite (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rather than deleting the article, we should focus on preventing nationalists from sabotaging it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is encyclopedic. If the use of "wars" in the title is the reason for this AfD, one could always request a move to something like List of armed conflicts involving Cyprus. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If we delete this list user GiorgosY will have one less page for their disruptive edits. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:00, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Mentillo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and effectively an unsourced BLP. Most likely selfpromo. Copy Chris Mentillo of the same author is already redirected. The Banner talk 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, looks like a WP:COI to me. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:MUSBIO. Article claims that the subject has won a writing award in the lead section, but in the body it fails to acknowledge an award at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we should let Carbon0902 fix it first, apparently it wasn't ready to go live. But if it doesn't get userfyed, turned into a Draft, or et cetera, the previous statement on deletion remains true. ----Mr. Guye (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Guye. I wish to thank you thus far for taking the time to help rectify this article in question. In addition, I'm pleased to see that you've taken the appropriate measurements to properly make informed decisions on the issues at hand, before executing any kind of deletion for this article. Seriously, you are the kind of professional we need more of here on wikipedia - literally. To many editors, etc in my opinion, are far too quick to pull the trigger regarding deleting articles which show obvious potential for improvement - given they are allowed ample amount of time to make such revisions; Thus is the case with this article. With my right hand on the bible, and God as my witness, I swear to you Mr. Guye there is no duplicate users, and this article was never meant to be submitted live for inclusion, simply because it was still being worked on. I assure you this was an honest mistake on my part, and so I now ask of you to please adopt me an help me reinstate the article to no longer be considered for deletion. I've already made some accepted revisions on the article for which I had planned on doing before accidentally making the article live. Additionally, I will be making more corrections for which you recommended, and indeed plan on doing whatever else is necessary in making the article acceptable for wikipedia inclusion. But I do need more time to properly finish my research on Mr. Mentillo to make the proper changes. I will be more than happy to make the suggested changes you mentioned to correct the problem. Thank you, and God Bless. --Carbon0902 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleted "award-winning writer," until proof of claim is properly referenced. Need additional time to reinstate claim. Also think external links should be removed. --Carbon0902 (talk) 03:36, 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, Sandstein 10:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now that we've moved it back to its proper place, I believe that Carbon wanted to userfy this? If so, it should be moved to User:Carbon0902/Doc Mentillo. ansh666 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My own sweeps of news sources did not find sources suggesting this subject meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 4 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 nomination withdrawn as he won the election before the discussion was closed. Sourcing and content updates are needed, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Obernolte[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a mayor of a small (pop. 5K) town and as an unelected candidate for election to the state legislature. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL — mayors of big cities pass it while mayors of small towns don't, whereas a state assembly candidate must win, not merely run in, the election to claim notability on that basis. Further, this article as written is relying predominantly on primary sources — his own biography on the city's website, the websites of organizations mentioned in the text, etc. — rather than reliable ones, and the number of legitimate sources here is not sufficient to claim WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but in the meantime this is effectively a campaign brochure, which is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians are designed to weed out. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a politican and lacks the coverage required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable outside of just running for California State Assembly and being a Mayor of a small city. A quick google search, news search, books search, and google scholar search all produce more than enough hits/results confirming notability. The article does need more references, which are available, but that is not any reason to delete it. Meatsgains (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar gets a whopping five hits, of which three are archives of the university newspaper at the university he graduated from (not a source that can confer notability) and the other two are just cursory, non-substantive passing mentions. Basic Google search brings up his own campaign literature and social networking links; Google News search brings up campaign coverage and nothing else. So if he's notable for anything other than being a smalltown mayor and an unelected assembly candidate, it would help immeasurably if you'd actually explain and properly source something he's notable for. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Go ahead and take a look at the recent reliable sources I added to the page, of which don't deal with his campaign. Perhaps this article or this article are notable and deserve mentioning in the BLP, giving Obernolte more notability.

Below are some of the reliable sources I added (none touching on his campaign):

No Regrets: The Life of an American Martial Artist
Forbes
Nintendo Life
Racing Jets
Plane and Pilot Mag

Still not notable? How many RS are you wanting? Meatsgains (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing does not mean you can just add any web page that happens to have his name in it — it has to be substantive coverage of a significant and notable achievement in a specific range of acceptable media sources. But these all fail one or more of those conditions: No Regrets simply mentions his name a single time in a single paragraph about his private, personal and non-encyclopedic hobby of martial arts. He's not the subject of the Forbes article; it's about an airplane manufacturing company, and he merely happens to be mentioned briefly as a person who happens to own one of their planes. Nintendo Life is an interview with him, but it's a core principle of AFD that interviews with the topic cannot demonstrate their notability — they're acceptable for additional sourcing of facts after you've added enough sources to cover off his basic notability, but because of their self-promotional aspects they cannot count toward the establishment of his notability. Racing Jets is just a promotional blurb on the website of an organization he's directly involved with, not coverage in media — it's a primary source. And Pilot Journal is only covering him in the context of the private plane.

So none of those sources demonstrate that he warrants an article in an encyclopedia. All they've added is "does martial arts" and "owns a private plane", neither of which is a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article — so you still haven't demonstrated that he's notable for anything besides being a small-town mayor and unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your explanation and insight. Would the CNN article/event I noted add to his notability or would that fall under WP:ONEEVENT? Also, he is the Founder and President of FarSight Studios, a video game development studio, which seems notable. It would be my suggestion to postpone deletion until after the election is over. If we wins, we keep the article as a California Assemblyman is notable but if he loses, we can delete the article. What do you think? Meatsgains (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN articles still wouldn't really help — he's not their subject, but is merely quoted briefly commenting on the thing that is. The video game studio might certainly get him over our inclusion standards for businesspeople, but leading a company doesn't automatically get a person into Wikipedia either — what would be necessary is significant reliable source coverage in which the video game company itself is the substance of what he's getting covered for. (Mentioning it as background in coverage of the candidacy doesn't satisfy that.)

One other thing it's important to understand about AFD is that a deletion result here is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have a Wikipedia article — it's merely a judgement on the specific version of the article that exists at the time of the discussion. If we delete an article about an unelected candidate, and then he goes on to win the election in the end, then his basic notability claim has changed and a new article about him is allowed to be recreated again. If we delete a promotional PR-kit article about a musician who has yet to actually release his first album, but then once he finally does release the album it turns into a big hit and makes him a major celebrity who gets lots of press coverage, then he does get to have an article again. People's basic notability claims can change, the availability of sourcing about them can change, and on and so forth — and if those things happen, then you can start a new article about them again regardless of what AFD has done in the past (the only thing you're not allowed to do is recreate the same version without improving the sourcing or the notability claim.)

And we even have the ability to restore previously deleted articles, so even the work that's already been done here isn't going to be permanently lost if the article does need to be recreated after the election. So we don't postpone consideration of articles about unelected candidates until after the election is over, because deleting it today doesn't preclude recreation or restoration in the future if circumstances change. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 25 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, Sandstein 10:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait or Redirect~~ to article about election per WP:POLOUTCOMES & WP:BIO1E. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary and secondary reliable sources, however almost all of them are regarding the subject as a candidate for a California Assembly race. Therefore, those fall under notability for a single event, and thus per WP:BIO1E, if the subject of this AfD loses, the appropriate thing is to redirect to the event which the subject is notable for, in this an election. As today is election day here in California, we shall no in the next 24 hours if the subject has been elected, if the subject has the subject is automatically notable as being a member of a sub-national assembly per WP:POLITICIAN, therefore I suggest we wait 24 hours before making any decisions.

As for the links above No Regrets, it is produced by a self-publishing company, thus falls under WP:SPS, and is not notable, the rest are only brief mentions and are not significant coverage. The one that is significant coverage is the interview from NintendoLife, but one interview does not make for notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the subject will likely be meeting WP:POLITICIAN (66.2% of the vote with 14.4% of precinct reporting as of this post), therefore this AfD will be moot soon, and thus the article should be keeped.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it looks like he won after all and I'm accordingly withdrawing this nomination. That said, however, the article still needs to be rewritten to put the weight and the referencing where it belongs — as of right now, two full days after the election results were announced, it still says he's a candidate rather than the member-elect. And also, just for the record, in the future please don't make speculative presumptions based on where the vote stands after just 16.6 per cent of the ballots have been counted; leads can flip as more of the results are tabulated — it has actually really happened, believe it or not, that the person who was trailing at 99.9 per cent of the vote count actually flipped into the lead in the final 0.1 per cent. So just because a person happens to be leading at any given point during the count doesn't necessarily always mean they're guaranteed to win. It doesn't kill anyone on here to wait until all 100 per cent of the votes have been counted. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 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 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cargo Carriers Flight SNC-1290[edit]

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

Non-notable accident - wheel fires on aircraft are not that uncommon and rarely of note. (Note - Proposed Deletion removed by article creator) MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this article allowed so anyone on the Shorts 360 page can link to this one for more details and photos. Samf4u 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samf4u (talk • contribs) Samf4u 22:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the notability of this accident. The coverage appears routine. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the a/c was a write-off as claimed, the accident can be covered ubder the airline, airport and aircraft articles, suitably referenced. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 3 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matchday Live[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Original deletion rationale remains valid - there is no evidence of notability. It's a "show" but the article is so poor you can't even tell if it's radio or TV...FYI it's radio but that's pretty much the only source I can find about it! Giant Snowman 09:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: People who are saying they don't know whether if it's radio or TV, they can search the internet and add according to it rather than blaming the creator(which was me). If you want to know the Premier League produces the show before and after the live televised premier league games. I just added one article to such a vast Encyclopedia having thousands articles about various television shows. So I don't see any harm in keeping it. --Sammanhumagain (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per nominator, no evidence of notability, why should we have this article? I cant see any reason to keep it. You cant say that other articles exist as argument, WP:OTHERSTUFF. QED237 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough to have an article. I added a category, but still could not tell if it is a radio nor TV show. If readers have to "google" to find that answer, this article fails inclusion. — Wylie pedia 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither the creator or anyone else has added any references to show notability just stating (above) "they can search the internet" - if people are expected to have to search out the information for themselves no point in having the article that adds no real value. Most of the 'information' appears to be covered on John Dykes - would suggest the creator (or any other interested parties) add more on that page. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen puabi dna[edit]

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

Almost incomprehensible, Written like an essay, NPOV violations Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the Puabi article contained sourced info about her DNA, a redirect there would be appropriate. But even if her DNA had been recovered (as the nominated page fantasizes), it would not be worth a separate article. —teb728 t c 09:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing in this article is worth keeping, and Puabi is the place where any sourced content would belong. A redirect is not appropriate, since this poorly capitalised title is not a plausible search term. -- 120.23.19.108 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A10. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There's no indication of notability, no sources, it's almost unreadable, and its clearly fails WP:NPOV. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:57, 4 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 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zehl[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, per WP:BIO. A whole bunch of junk sources or trivial coverage. The article was recently CSDed (I was the nominator) and recently resurrected by an SPA. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what every other lawyer would have on their page. Not notable above and beyond typical lawyer non-notability. VViking_TalkEdits 02:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - litigating some of the US's most successful law suits makes you notable, and atypical of the normal lawyer. No, not every single lawyer wins multi-million dollar cases against some of the most recognizable American brands. Fundraising maniac wonder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) — Fundraising maniac wonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dear Fundraising maniac wonder: you have made exactly one WP edit, and it is the the !vote above. With more experience on WP, your view might be better received. It's actually more fun doing edits than arguing over deletions, so I encourage you to do that. Also, remember to sign your posts! The instructions are right the on the screen under the edit box, and you just have to click. LaMona (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article came in whole-cloth from a single SPA author Special:Contributions/Ebarr_94. The remaining few edits were routine bots and cleanup. It is defended by a no-edit account. It is, however, only 7 days old at this point. This is an unusual article history - born complete, no additional edits, SPA account. Unless someone with cred comes along to defend it, I'm going to go with delete. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 8 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. For a while, I was wondering if no consensus to delete made more sense here, since there are some reasonable arguments to merge this into arab spring. But, then I looked at Talk:Arab_Winter#Merge_to_Arab_spring. That ongoing discussion clearly rules out any idea of a merge. Taking that sentiment into account here, a clear keep consensus becomes obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Winter[edit]

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

The term “Arab Winter” has been used in a few sources, as a counter-play on the widely used term “Arab Spring”, but I don’t think the term has risen to the level of notability to warrants its own article. The majority of the current article is just WP:OR, in which some editors have complied a list of countries in a table, to illustrate what they believe is part of an “Arab Winter”, while the sources used do not mention this term at all. Some of the relevant material in the article has already been merged into the Arab Spring article, where I believe it belongs. If this term "sticks" and becomes notably used, the article can easily be recreated at that time. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if this is forum shopping. Discussions to merge may have been slow, but the consensus to merge is mixed. See Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a discussion for deletion, not for merging, as I don't believe that a merge is warranted, given the lack of notability for this term. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In some cases, AFDs result in either redirect or merge. --George Ho (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - The article has potential, but it cannot stay as "Arab Winter" any longer. Rename to Aftermath of Arab Spring and expand further. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is stopping you from expanding Arab Spring to include narratives and events reported in RS about its aftermath. If when you do that you get to a point in which the material is too expansive, a consideration for splitting can be made at that point, otherwise creating an "aftermath" article will be an aberration and a certain POV fork. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Arab Winter could become a countervailing section in Arab Spring, Arab Spring being the commonly applied politically correct oxymoron --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the effects of Arab Spring? Are they just original research? --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep as is, the multiple proposals by user:Cwobeel to merge or delete the page (this is the third) may indicate rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than an actual reason for this proposal. I remind that there was no consensus to merge the article into Arab Spring previously.GreyShark (dibra) 12:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first deletion request that I am aware of. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge - Out of the 44 sources used in the article, I'm curious how many actually use the term "Arab Winter". My guess is that it's significantly less than half and clearly won't pass the weight test. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- About 10 sources, the vast majority opinion pieces. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Arab_Spring#Aftermath. This is an extremely significant topic on which substantial work has been done, and the only problem with it is a title that can be interpreted as POV - and even that is debatable as the term has been used in numerous sources. Renaming or merging should be straightforward enough. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The events described in "Arab Winter" are slightly similar to the events in Arab Spring, though not quite the same. Even if the media hasn't quite caught on to this new term, that's no reason to delete the article outright. If we did this to all of the articles we come across, then many of the articles on Wikipedia wouldn't be in existence today. Sure, the article may be poorly sourced or have plenty or OR issues, but those problems can be corrected over time. Besides, more information and coverage on this topic will pop up gradually. The events described do appear to be legitimate, so I think that we should give people time to develop the article and make improvements. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge - Certain parts of the article have headed toward being a kind of "catch-all" that positions it closer to overlapping with the aftermath of the Arab Spring/concurrent events. For example, the sections describing events in Tunisia, while indeed covering political upheaval and sharp change, do not necessarily fit in with the introduction's characterization of the "Arab Winter." The attributes of "civil war," "economic and demographic decline," and "ethno-religious sectarian strife" do not encompass the Tunisia transition to a greater level than is typically the case with similar transitions outside the Arab world. There is also some ambiguity about the degree to which the article posits a strong connection between the Arab Spring's aftermath and events completely unrelated to the Arab Spring in regards to the conflicts and insurgences in Iraq. The overlap is getting to a sufficient level that it might be worth considering a rename or possibly even a merge. Viewpoint as a minor editor of the article. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for a well informed comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator says, most of the article is OR and the acceptable parts could be described in the main article, namely the Arab Spring. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge – I'll repeat what's been said above. this article is largely based on WP:OR. The term "Arab Winter" is not widely used anywhere, and seems to be trying to push a WP:POV. Perhaps some of the content is valuable, but the article is not. Do away with it. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Term is separate and widely used for acknowledging the crisis of civil war since 2012. Noteswork (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term appears to be used in multiple reliable sources both on the internet, by some news sources, in books, and in scholarly articles. One interesting note, the term appears to be used to a lesser extent to the period between the Iraqi Kuwait invasion until the Arab Spring, and to a larger extent to the aftermath of the Arab Spring.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is pretty detailed and well sourced. If it was notable enough to be merged or included, then I'd say that it can also merit its own article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and merge content from Spillover of the Syrian Civil War - The topic of the article is legit, but it should be moved to a more neutral and descriptive title until enough RS commonly refer to this period as a "winter". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The issue here at AfD is whether the topic and content of this article is notable (not it's title). This article clearly is notable based on the reliable sources it already has (as of this version). The other issues mentioned above need to be addressed, but not here at AfD. To improve the article, they should be addressed on Talk:Arab_Winter, or by neutral editors making quality improvements (I note that the merge to candidate Arab Spring also has much content in tables (as of this version), that also would be better converted to encyclopedic narrative). — Lentower (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search suffices to establish the subject's notability. As for merging, there's a separate discussion regarding a possible merger which was started long before this AfD and the decision as to whether to merge or not should be made there, not here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:21, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Sandel[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Claim to fame is "giving up the first base hit to Jackie Robinson who broke professional baseball's color barrier in 1946" while playing in the minor leagues, which is trivial. Despite article's assertions, he never played at the major league level in a regular season or postseason game. Alex (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a fairly well sourced article that satisfies GNG.Spanneraol (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article's author, I'm a bit biased, but also confused by the claim that he is a "non-notable minor league player", actually he is notable that's why he has been discussed in the NY Times, Chicago Tribune and mainstream books. Fascinating human interest story.EdJF (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of pitchers gave up lots of Hall of Famers' first professional hits. Alex (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect they all have a Wikipedia article. If not I'd be willing to start.EdJF (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you really comparing the first hit in breaking the color barrier in baseball with just any old first professional hit by a Hall-of-Famer to be? In any case, this hit got lots more attention than a typical future Hall-of-Famer-to-be's first hit, both at the time and later. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Be honest...how many of us had heard of Sandel before this AfD? Outside of it being a matter of trivia, there is really nothing of note about Sandel's "feat". Especially considering Robinson wasn't even the first black major league player. Alex (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Spanneraol and the fact that Sandel got plenty of attention for giving up that historic hit. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aren't all of the above really reasons to delete the article per WP:ONEEVENT? --Jersey92 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sandel has received attention and coverage for other events, even though those on their own without the big one may not be enough to meet WP:GNG. For example, [7] [8] Rlendog (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is he notable for? It seems like for only one event. The other coverage does not seem to establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ONEEVENT doesn't require "notability" for multiple events. He has received coverage in reliable sources for more than just this event and was not a "low profile" individual so WP:BLP1E is not applicable. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BIO1E, subject has received significant coverage as it relates to the first hit of Jackie Robinson. Outside of that one event, the subject had received during his playing days multiple mentions in reliable sources, but none where the subject was the topic of the source, or where the subject himself received significant coverage. Most of the mentions, the subject was a player in a game, and the game was the primary topic of the source; therefore this can be seen as falling under WP:ROUTINECOVEREAGE. As a player himself the subject does not appear to pass WP:NBASEBALL. Therefore, given the notability in relation to the event of Jackie Robinson's first hit, and not being a major league ballplayer himself, or being otherwise generally notable, at this time it is my recommendation to redirect this article to Jackie Robinson#minor league. If a sub-section is created that is specific to that first hit event, that would be a better redirect target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think one event applies... The guy had a 13 year career in professional baseball and the article contains several sources that discuss him in depth, the Van Blair book for one has an extensive interview with him. Spanneraol (talk) 21:11, 5 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Past Comes Back to Haunt You[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable album. No charting. No reviews. No sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now has two reviews, and some sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article now sufficiently referenced to establish its notability.Dan arndt (talk) 14:55, 12 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 16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with the nominator: not notable. Recent references and reviews are not from reliable sources--a few mentions/reviews in some ezines/websites aren't sufficient. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 24 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 25 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This EP just about manages to have at least some notability.DrDevilFX (talk) 08:23, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Petrick[edit]

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

Player in question does not meet notability requirements as outlined here. Does not meet any of the six possible criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwb92 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably speedy keep because the nominator made an error of assumption. She does meet the notability requirements listed since she is in the main draw of a WTA International event as listed at this official WTA draw sheet. This is also the nominator's very first edit to wikipedia and it's an AfD so probably just an error in judgement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Player is notable by project standards. Jared Preston (talk) 19:12, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NTENNIS #3 having played in the quarter-finals of a WTA International doubles match. Fuebaey (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She reached the quarterfinals of the 2014 Coupe Banque Nationale (WTA International tournament), so she is notable per WP:NTENNIS (point 3). JGab12 (talk) 16:10, 4 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shark City Scandal[edit]

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

extremely small set of incidents, nowhere near a notable scandal, infecting an election cycle. the incident is NOT referred to by this name. some concern about BLP violations in a marginally notable/nonnotable article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Big issues regarding BLP and SOAPBOX. There is enough local coverage that mention of this might be warranted in San Jose Police Officers Association, if it were deemed to be a notable organization. Some reports are beginning to tie this to San Jose mayoral election, 2014. Depending on how this plays out, Chuck Reed, Sam Liccardo, Dave Cortese may need to be watched for BLP concerns. - Location (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is sole contribution to date by a new editor, see contributions of StickNMove here. I haven't looked for whether there is validity, i.e. public naming of this scandal by this name. I haven't checked what wp:SOAPBOX says, either. But Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be the venue for new coining of a scandal name. --do ncr am 20:36, 25 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 04:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to not yet come close to WP:EVENT, lacking coverage with geographic scope, lasting effects, or evidence of persistent coverage. I'm a resident of the city, and there may be something I need to get up at arms as a voter in the city about it, but I don't see that this yet meets our notability criterion. Moreover, if we were to ever have an article about this, it needs a new name, "2014 blah blah blah controversy" or the like, there is no reliable sourcing for this name at all, and as a result, the article comes off as trying to sell a viewpoint. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 10 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. WP:NOQUORUM (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 12:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riley "Special" Wallace[edit]

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

Subject is a local musician in Toronto and does not seem notable. References provided consist primarily of bloggers who mention the subject incidentally. The "Get Ready To Strike" song (the article subject's primary claim to notability) on youtube has less than 13000 views. Niado (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 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) 05:59, 25 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 04:36, 2 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, based both on this discussion and on the deletion review. My reading of consensus is that we are missing reliable sources to confirm notability, but in principle these sources can exist. Therefore, if anybody is interested in working on the article, it can be userfied on request.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Brennan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an academic, whose article as written is basically a prosified résumé which makes no real claim that she actually passes WP:ACADEMIC in any substantive way. Further, the article relies almost entirely on primary sources — her profiles on the webpages of institutions and organizations she's directly affiliated with — with two references to an independent source (same publisher both times, but two different pages on that site) in which the only mention of her name either time is as the named author in a single citation within an article that's otherwise not about her. So there's not sufficient referencing here to claim that she's gotten past WP:GNG. I'm willing to withdraw this if the substance and sourcing can actually be beefed up to properly demonstrate her notability as an academic, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I'd like to save this article per WP:HEYMANN, but what I found is articles by her, suggesting she's well-published, what I looked for (and didn't find) was reliable secondary sources with third parties commenting on Brennan's work, what its impact has been, and so forth. I did a rudimentary pass using online philosophy journals, again didn't find much. Agree with the nominator's description of the current 'references'. I am not sure if WP:ACADEMIC might apply in terms of citations of her articles, but it does not look like she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the secondary coverage required to meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 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, Sandstein 11:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This was closed as "delete" but is now relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11. Editors should consult that discussion for possibly relevant sources. Sandstein 11:28, 25 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 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG; also published writings do not seem to reach threshold for notability. Maybe just too soon.Quis separabit? 02:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are weak. #6-7 are encyclopedia articles that cite works of hers, so no more important than a citation in G-Scholar. #1-2,3-5 are sites that say: "this person exists" or "this person visited" - not significant. #8 is a web site than anyone can join. #9 is an article about her views on fitness and dieting. #4 is a link to a Goodreads page: not a reliable resource. I did find one solid resource, a lengthy radio interview: [9]. Probably not enough considering the lack of other sources. LaMona (talk) 19:23, 8 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 but consider it a WP:SOFTDELETE due to the sparse participation in this discussion, weakly advocating deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Swiderski[edit]

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

Non notable art director. She isn't mentioned on any of the films she has worked on and she was only nominated for an excellence award - she didn't win it. Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not much information about her in regular sweeps of US news, international media, entertainment-related media, but there is a mention of her in this book, plus a long list of her credits here, suggesting she's a respected professional in her field, plus several sentences here, so stepping back a bit, somewhat unfair that the movie stars and directors get the lion's share of attention from journalists, while the real people who make these incredible images, including Dawn Swiderski, don't get enough coverage, so she should be in Wikipedia, but such is life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 19 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, Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 25 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 04:32, 2 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 17:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nodalotaluk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable character whose silhouette appears in exactly one panel (on page 8) in one non-notable story. The character is mentioned at several other places in the story, but that still doesn't make her notable. I note that there is a proposal to merge the article to List of Donald Duck universe characters, but the character fails WP:IINFO in that article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less than 100 Ghits, can't find anything showing notability. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Donald Duck universe characters, which I proposed already over two weeks ago and got no objections. JIP | Talk 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would you find reliable third-party sources to use as references in that article? Would you also add all other characters who appear in exactly one panel to that article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:34, 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 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced article about a very minor fictional character. There is no sourced material to merge. Reyk _YO! 03:55, 3 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 Critical Mach number. "merge usable content".... j⚛e decker ^talk 17:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPPER CRITICAL MACH NO[edit]

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

We should either delete this as a non-notable science with no independent sources, or merge with existing article Critical Mach number. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge usable content into ~~Mach number~~ Critical Mach number. The terms "lower" and "upper" critical mach number are defined here:[10], and I don't think the subject is non-notable, but the article is too much of a mess to salvage. All the references are actually internal links to Wikipedia. The same applies to lower critical mach number. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: I like this new proposal, but why not merge to Critical Mach number? --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Yes, that's what I meant to write. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same person also created Lower critical mach number, Gun Tunnel and Lift divergence. The Lower article should also have an AfD notice tied into this one. Not sure about the others. Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 27 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 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely, and do as Sammy1339 said. Eman235/talk 06:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sammy. Sam Walton (talk) 23:25, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Arem[edit]

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

lack of notability Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. My sweeps of US newspapers and magazines, entertainment-related publications, and even an unfiltered search based on her name in quotes, plus with her middle initial, turned up nothing, although my guess is she's a competent voice actor, with many projects. General problem is that voice actors don't get much press. Unfortunately, doesn't meet the WP:GNG as best as I can determine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:36, 18 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:17, 25 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 04:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG, though as previous editor stated - unfortunately, this may be more about voice actor coverage than the subject's work. EBY (talk) 05:09, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bonoh Sisay[edit]

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

Non-notable individual fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. References are either non-independent or passing mentions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 17 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:36, 25 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 04:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is based on primary sources, generic profiles, passing mentions, and sources that don't appear to meet WP:RS. There isn't enough coverage to show that either WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 6 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. Noting that the single WP:JNN argument for delete does not even attempt to refute the position that this band meets criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola (Thai band)[edit]

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

unsourced fails WP:GNG WP:BAND. A quick book search retrieved only passing mentions. Widefox; talk 10:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band is a notable Thai rock band. I will work on its references. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references. The band was an opening act for Linkin Park's 2011 concert in Bangkok as can be seen here (the article is in Thai but you can see the text "Ebola" in there). [11] Non-notable band won't get chance like this. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a couple of the refs added in, one didn't mention the band, one didn't support the text. Can you double check them, and then I'm happy to withdraw nom when you've done that. Widefox; talk 07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are all in Thai. The only English ref is box office number for the movie that features Ebola's song (it uses pronounced Thai movie name instead of the proper English title). I have to 2 references that are about the movie popularity, not directly related to Ebola's band or song itself. But the band's most well-known song is this movie soundtrack. Music chart performance for the soundtrack, unfortunately is in discussion forum form so I cannot yet include it into article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) [12] ~~Yes I did that~~. 1. is a press release so doesn't count for notability [13] , and I don't think 3. does [14]. Can you point out 2 WP:RS - secondary independent that have editorial control rather than just advertising / promo? (unrelated to notability "Both the movie and the theme song became smash hits" where one of the refs [15] is just raw numbers WP:PRIMARY requiring interpretation to make that claim) Widefox; talk 07:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Mueang (paper newspaper), Manager Online (paper+online newspaper), Music Express (music-topic magazine), bangkokbiznews (paper+online business newspaper) are independent sources. Music Express reported the press release event from Warner Music, not the press release itself which can be taken from archive of Warner Music Thailand website. Note that some references like those about movie are there for future article improvement. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the article to Ebola (band) per WP:NCDAB. No comment on notability, since I don't speak Thai to evaluate those references. Xqxf (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bit of a "weak" one. I've heard their music and they have drawn a lot of loyal fans. I read that they've received some awards and landed some prestigious gigs. I've also read that there are nine bands globally with the rather unfortunate name "Ebola" and I've heard one other on YouTube, a Japanese band; however, the above page move is probably sound since this is the only band with that name that appears to be notable. Two things are somewhat bothersome:

Their website, http://www.ebolasound.com/ seems to be either defunct or has become a blog-only site, and
A search for "Ebola band" on the Warner Music, Thailand website yields zero results (hence the dead external link).

So this one is almost a toss-up, but does lean slightly toward a keep, especially with a contributor above who seems to be scrambling to look for more and better reliable sources. Lerdsuwa, I hope you are able to secure them! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There may be some useful info at Ebola (band) on the Thai Wikipedia. Curious that "Ebola" on the th wiki redirects to the band, not to the disease as it does here on the en wiki. PS added by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, that's not their website, it's in Japanese, not Thai. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Supersaiyen312! As evidenced by research shown below, that website was the Thai band's at one time. I have removed it from the Thai wiki's infobox. And according to the comment below, this band does not appear to fail notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:37, 3 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:37, 25 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 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The band www.ebolasound.com domain name registration expired some time ago. I have replaced the above link in the article back in 22 October to http://warnermusic.co.th/?page_id=1083 which contains the band social network contact. You haven't looked at the current version of the article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the archive of www.ebolasound.com from December 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20051230043409/http://www.ebolasound.com/ which is in Thai. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They clearly meet WP:BAND #5, i.e. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." --Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Paul 012. I haven't verified this myself (I also don't speak Thai) but if they've released multiple ablums on legit labels, WP:BAND#5 seems to apply clearly here. —mako ๛ 18:18, 12 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Al Habeeb[edit]

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

No results whatsoever on Google. None at all. When searching, be aware of an unrelated woman named Zainab Al Habib. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: article about a real person with no significance or importance. Wikicology (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless tons of info can be found in Arabic-language sources and translated, this is not happening. Cannolis (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the subject started a major conflict, so I think that is a claim to significance. Mr. Guye (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless new sources are found. The one reference is nothing but a memorial by her academic department. She was a physics student (not physician) and it doesn't even list a cause of death, much less anything about a tribal conflict. I can't find any news sources on the incident. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:03, 2 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 17:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Postal[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Source 1 (MTV Artists) is self-authored "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form" (sic). Source 2 is a somewhat in-depth post on a specialist website--not enough to establish notability. Source 3 is a self-created video. Source 4 does not mention subject of article. Source 5 only briefly mentions subject of article. Sources 6-8 are just listings, lack independence, and do not establish notability. Note that creator of article User:知的な is a blocked sock from a massive commercial sockfarm. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP sourcing issues including UGC (ref 1). Part of paid editing SPAM articles. Widefox; talk 12:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ Postal was not notable at the time of the last deletion. Still not notable now. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Stop rewarding spam editors. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 9 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. WP:NOQUORUM (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 12:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Starlights and Fleeting Daybreaks[edit]

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

Independent release from a subsequently notable band that failed to achieve notability and is essentially a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:42, 25 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 2 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 Closed to allow nominator to renominate each article separately. The nominator has withdrawn this joint proposal. Bduke (Discussion) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Schools Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization which operates a number of for-profit schools. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the organization or its schools in reliable sources, except for brief announcements and reprinted press releases. The articles rely almost entirely on the organization's website for references. I also note that a major contributor, Ordovas, may have a conflict of interest, as John Ordovas is the organization's director. Pburka (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following member schools:

Pburka (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of "British Schools Foundation" - wikipedia yields very relatively few results (only about 22.3K). Optimally, this would be kept and the member schools merged, but coverage is more reliant on self-published sources and, as stated above, passing media mentions. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this organisation, but the schools go up to Secondary level (in one case will do so in the future) and Secondary Schools are normally kept. I suggest that the schools be discussed separately. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true; however, the vast majority of secondary schools don't have articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where do you get that idea from? Just looking at Secondary Schools in one city - Sheffield, UK, where I went to school - seems to show that all Secondary Schools in the city have articles. Sure there are places in the world that still need work, but they will get it some time. My points still stands that the Schools should be discussed separately. My !vote is keep for the Schools and I have no opinion on at this time on the organisation. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize. It's not a vast majority. But in places like New York City, there are many secondary schools that have articles, and many that don't. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is no policy or consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable. School inclusionists usually argue that secondary schools are important institutions in their communities, and are therefore likely to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These private schools, I think, are not likely to be important institutions in their communities since, in my experience, international schools target expatriates. These are transients who are not part of the community. I don't think the nominations should be separate. If the schools are notable, then it seems that the parent organization (typically a school district, but in this case a business) must be notable, too. I believe that there is no demonstrable notability for either the schools or the parent organization, and that these articles amount to little more than WP:PROMOTION. Pburka (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have very many articles on international schools. See List of international schools and the sub-lists linked there for some countries, along with the large category tree Category:International schools. When you say "typically a school district", you are looking through US lenses. They do not exist in most countries. If the articles are promotional, they should be improved, not deleted. If the schools were listed separately, it is more than likely that they will not be deleted. As they are included here, they will be overlooked. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination and list the articles separately. If you agree to that, I can close the AfD as I am an admin, but I can not act otherwise as I have contributed to the discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That other stuff exists is a poor argument to keep. Your original argument was based on WP:OUTCOMES; can you give examples of articles on international schools which lack secondary sources and which have survived AfD? Pburka (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I listed then to counter your argument that international schools were not likely to be important in their communities and thus have sources. It is very common for articles on secondary schools with no sources to come to AfD. Editors then find sources. That is why they are almost always kept as there are almost always sources to be found. That is why I want you to list the schools separately so they will be noticed by editors with more time than I and more access to sources in the relevant countries. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the clarification. I've taken a look at the list, and each one I looked at is essentially unreferenced, but your point is still valid. I withdraw this bulk nomination and will renominate the articles individually. Pburka (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 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. The consensus is to do something with this material other than keeping it as a stand-alone article. If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her. It's already mentioned in List of rogue security software, however, and an extended treatment in Rogue security software would indeed seem to be undue weight, so someone might want just to create a redirect from this title to the list article. Deor (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Police Pro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the article is a how-to guide (not allowed), does not assert why this malware is notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD ended in KEEP, as people had established that Bleeping Computer was a reliable source, and their coverage of it made it notable, plus it mentioned in many other places as well. The virus was notable because of how much coverage it got. Dream Focus 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not reflect this alleged notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (rogue antivirus/malware) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was last afd'ed in 2009, when standards for reliable sources were more lax. The one independent ref is the Bleeping Computer article, a how-to on removal. How-to articles are not generally useful for establishing notability. In any case, one article is not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up removal how-to's and forum posts but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 23 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:31, 25 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[[reply]

Delete - it is just one of many fake antivirus programs, I don't see a particular notability for this one, it doesn't go about its malicious business any different from the rest. If it were the first, or the first to be spread widely, or the first to target a particular os, or did something unusual (like the one that pretends it's the FBI, claims you have been viewing illegal material, and issues you with a "fine" that must be paid to unlock your computer), then maybe some of that would be enough notability, if there were sources suggesting that. But it seems that there are not such sources, and the bleepingcomputer source says that it is just "from the same family as Windows Antivirus Pro" and came after it. However, maybe its name, and Windows Antivirus Pro, and the names of similar fake antivirus programs should be added to the Rogue security software article.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Rogue security software. It's just one of them run-of-the-mill trojans posing as antivirus software. As what Tiptoe said, unless if it had anything note-worthy or was covered in major news outlets like with WinFixer, I don't think this would be worthy of inclusion, at least for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:
1. Oiaga, Marius (2009-10-15). "Windows Antivirus Pro Tackled by the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2014-11-11. Retrieved 2014-11-11.
  The first paragraph of the article is:
  Windows Antivirus Pro, also known as Windows Police Pro or ASC Antivirus, is the latest piece of rogue antivirus products that Microsoft has started tackling with its free Malicious Software Removal Tool security solution. Identified as TrojanDownloader:Win32/FakeScanti, the malicious code is an example of a fake antivirus, an application masquerading as a security solution. Just as other rogue antivirus programs, FakeScanti turns to a range of social engineering tricks in order to fool victims into paying for a license for a piece of software with no real functionality.
  Several other paragraphs about the virus follow.
  A list of reviews by Marius Oiaga is at http://linux.softpedia.com/editors/browse/marius-nestor^WebCite. http://www.softpedia.com/editors/ has a list of editors and contributors. The editorial staff indicates that the source has received the editorial oversight necessary to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
2. "Getting rid of malware". Coeur d'Alene Press. 2009-10-11. Archived from the original on 2014-11-11. Retrieved 2014-11-11.
Dream Focus (talk · contribs) provided a Bleeping Computer article. According to the 2006 book "Rootkits For Dummies" published by John Wiley & Sons:
Our Rootkits For Dummies Technical Editor, Lawrence Abrams, owns the Bleeping Computer Web site — and he is very hands-on in administering its daily operation. Bleeping Computer boasts an expert staff, and within a very short time it has become one [of] the most active security forums on the Web.
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/about/ says:
When reviewing products, the editors and team members will always provide honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products.
The "expert staff" and the "editors" indicate that the source has received the editorial oversight necessary to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Windows Police Pro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Cunard's extra sources seem raise this article past the WP:N threshold (although just barely). For sure, the article is a mess and the extra sources need to be integrated but we can fix this one and need not delete it. —mako ๛ 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tiptoe and Blakegripling. There just isn't enough to say about these malware programs individually to justify a separate page. There would be very little left if all the HOWTO stuff was taken out, and virtually nothing beyond the generic description of spoof security software. SpinningSpark 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per tiptoe and spinningspark - there isn't enough detail on this particular program to merit it's own page. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a fourth source: this article^WebCite by Microsoft staff member David Wood in Microsoft TechNet. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
David Wood's article provides some history of the virus:
We first saw a variant of Win32/FakeScanti back in early March of this year, when it went by the name of ASC Antivirus. There was then very little activity on the FakeScanti front until late July, when we noticed a file, which we detect as TrojanDownloader:Win32/FakeScanti, downloading a new version of the scanner going by the name of Windows Antivirus Pro. This version was proactively detected by the signatures added in March. Since then there has been a steady stream of new files, but only one name change, to Windows Police Pro. Apart from the name change, the user interface, and even the list of alleged “malware” detected by this rogue, has remained identical:
This background information (which could be added to a "History" or "Background" section in this article) would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight if the article is merged into Rogue security software, so I would recommend against mandating a merge at AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rogue security software. It might technically meet the GNG, but I think our readers are better served by having information about all of these malicious programmes in one place, rather than balkanised out all over the shop. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Background information about Windows Police Pro could not be merged to Rogue security software without being undue weight. The readers would be best served by having 1) an article about Windows Police Pro and 2) a brief mention of Windows Police Pro in Rogue security software with a link to the Windows Police Pro article if readers want more information about it (for example, its background/history). Cunard (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy As he closed the previous AfD, Beeblebrox said that although the article "needs a lot of work, that is not a reason to delete." I agree with that statement. However, clearly nobody has taken interest in improving the article, and it's still in as bad a shape as it was then, five years ago. The subject of the article hasn't gained any notability either; it's still just a run-of-the-mill piece of ransomware. I think it's time to either delete the article—which is nothing but a synopsis of the one source it's based on—or, if someone steps up to the plate and takes it upon him or herself to improve Windows Police Pro to the point where a third AfD nomination won't be warranted—to userfy it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two reliable sources to the article that in addition to the Microsoft TechNet article clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill topics do not receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
AfD is not cleanup. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote a portion of the general notability guideline that seems to be ignored here: "coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Two sources have now been added to the article, without changing its actual content; one of the sources is essentially an advertisement for Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool, the other is a clearly biased response to someone's question, given by a person that calls Windows Police Pro a "putrid little program;" neither of the two introduces any new information that could be used to expand the article beyond what it already is—a summary of the article that can be found at bleepingcomputer.com which is explicitly a how-to guide to removing Windows Police Pro from an infected computer. How-to manuals are not allowed on Wikipedia, much less their subpar summaries. If someone thinks s/he can improve Windows Police Pro to meet Wikipedia's standards—which I don't think is possible for this particular non-encyclopedic subject—s/he's more than welcome to try; I have no objections whatsoever to the article's userfication if a request for it is made. My primary recommendation, however, is to delete it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see sufficient evidence of this article's subject's notability to warrant a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 12:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article. Information in the "History", "Infection symptoms", and "Virus removal" would be lost were the article to be merged and redirected to rogue security software. I therefore believe a merge would be against the encyclopedia's readers' best interests. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, a merge to rogue security software would not make sense. In its "See also" section, rogue security software has a link to List of rogue security software, where Windows Police Pro is already mentioned (along with about 300 other viruses). It is improbable to discuss in the rogue security software article Windows Police Pro or any of the other viruses in detail. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article because its another brick in the wall of thousands of similar not notable viruses... obviously it got coverage on websides about malware removings same as thousands of other similar not notable viruses... if you want example of notable viruss looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU okay? sorry, its not suiting encyuclopedia topic for standalone article... extraoirdinerily not encyclopedic subject needs extraordinery sourcing this one hasn't it 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for deletion, and the forum for discussion of merge is the talk page of the article. Articles don't have to show wp:notability, topics don't have to be "particularly notable", topics don't have to "gain" notability, there are sufficient sources to show that this is not a hoax or something made up by Wikipedia editors, WP:GNG does not exclude "how-to" sources, a previous AfD stipulated the presence of "decent reliable sources" and that article clean-up is not relevant for AfD, articles don't have to be cleaned up because they were previously at AfD, and I only see three "how-to" sentences which is fine if that is the consensus of the article content contributors. Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of unproduced Disney animated shorts and feature films[edit]

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

Trivia. Disney movies that were planned but cancelled are of no importance today. Disney movies that changed the storyline, which some of the movie titles in this list are (e.g. Kingdom of the Sun, which became The Emperor's New Groove) should be featured in the production section of the article about the movie they became (e.g. information about Kingdom of the Sun should be in the production section of The Emperor's New Groove. Georgia guy (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should remain undeleted especially where there are articles about unproduced or unrealized film projects once in development for Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and Tim Burton. Information about the released canon Disney films that had major story overhauls during production should be deleted, and kept strictly to the film's article, but this should not warrant an entire article's deletion. Christianster94 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with changes The information on unproduced feature films is definitely notable and should all be in once place, but I certainly don't mind if all the info on unproduced shorts was deleted, since I can't think of any rationale for keeping them. That might solve the trivia issue. Luthien22 (talk) 21:50, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination for deletion of this article seems little strange to me, since Walt Disney was known for halting productions of various project that were in production. If he didn't like script or the plot. Even if the animators worked hard on proposing or comming up with these idea. Walt was hard to please. There have been few books published about these various cancelled projects like "Disney that Never Was" (1995), and most of these unmade storyboards actually exist. Majority of these projects are shorts that would have starred Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy or Pluto which account for about 2/3 of total entries in the article. These four characters are the most notable cartoon characters the Walt Disney Studios created. These shorts would have been created during the golden age of American Animation, which is probably the most noble period in history of american animation. IF Disney hadn't cancelled all of these project his studio's total out closer to ca 700 cartoons form 1928 to 1959 instead of ca 450. The bases for this nomination thus is rather thin. But what the user Luthien22 seems to fail to understands the fact that Walt Disney Studio was built up on a Mouse named Mickey not Snow WHite so if Walt didn't experiment with producing animated shorts prior to 1937 then Walt would never have made Snow White in first place and then there would be no feature animation. He/She probably thinks that Walt Disney Studio has only produced feature animation, or very least what made the Disney name while quite a contrary it were the short most importantly those staring Mickey, then Pluto, Goofy and Donald. Suggesting the deletion of all shorts form the article actually makes this article quite pointless since only pre-1995 features for are properly sited. While most of those "unproduced" shorts in listed in past 20 years, are properly sited with no evidence of actual production begin with out being completed. Thus removing the unproduced shorts form the article is unwise, it makes more sense to do what user Christianster94 suggested. That major feature film story overhul should be deleted, though and I must ad along with uncited unconfiremd rumors DoctorHver (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this article to be worthy of inclusion. I think a subject like this has some historical importance in the field of film, as Disney is such a well-known animated movie studio. As an example of a similar article, there also exists an article called List of unreleased Warner Bros. animated shorts. --Stan2525 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe not important today, but one never knows. It seems to possess at least some historical importance as noted above. It is interesting enough and the topic is notable. I see no reason to delete it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:11, 3 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.