Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 November	21 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ByteShield[edit]

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

No references, notability not established for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't indicate why the company is notable, and I didn't find significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Rock-paper-scissors#Additional weapons. I don't see any good reason to keep this short article, already mostly duplicated in the Rock-paper-scissors section on Additional weapons, as a standalone article. I am therefore redirecting to that section. Any sourced content not yet present there is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock[edit]

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

This gets a full paragraph in Rock-paper-scissors#Additional weapons. It's not notable enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's correct. So it's a catchphrase/game on a TV show--that doesn't make it notable, esp. since all the hits I looked at were chatty, unreliable, mere mentions, etc. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I heard about it somewhere and came here to look it up. don't delete.

Redirect to Rock-paper-scissors. Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rock-paper-scissors. Deletion is inappropriate as it's a valid permeation of the game and should be documented. I'd argue that it meets GNG but it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Simply redirecting would lose content. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sourcable but barely notable expand of rock paper scissors, so perfect time to merge (with some trimming of details, like we don't need the blow-by-blow of which beats which when a diagram can do that). --MASEM (t) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is reasonable under the circumstances. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge is the best way forward. Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence beats opinion. The topic is notable per the WP:GNG as it is specifically discussed in detail in multiple papers including:

A golden point rule in rock–paper–scissors–lizard–spock game
Cycles, Diversity and Competition in Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock Spatial Game
The Real Story (and Some of the Math) Behind the Famous “Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock” Game
A Modified Rock-Paper-Scissor Game with Augmented Reality
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock: Two-Person circulant Games

Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meets GNG. The first cite supplied by Andrew is extremely solid. The others less so. But combined with other sources, it's above the bar. Keep. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Man Kin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 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) 21:12, 21 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) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. My sympathy actually lies with the "delete" !votes here. Unfortunately, WP has to reflect society and doesn't pursue an activist agenda. And the way things are, any run-of-the-mill minor athlete (I am not necessarily referring to Blevins here, but to all the hundreds of minor league athletes mentioned in the AfD) will get coverage in reliable sources, whereas, say, most scientists don't, even though the latter do influence (and improve) our lives immensely more. Available sources establish notability, although they are decidedly local and it would be nice if some better coverage could be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Blevins[edit]

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

Non notable minor league player... most recently played in the independent Atlantic League. Spanneraol (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the coverage in the article, I found this:[1][2][3][4][5] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um, good luck Spanneraol, if you feel that way, you're going to be crusading against hundreds of minor-leaguers who have articles.--ɱ (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. The links above don't come close to passing GNG. They're typical "local boy" articles written every day in U.S. newspapers. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSLOCAL isn't a valid reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily passes GNG, there is a large quantity of reliable, independent secondary sources in the article and in the comment made by User:Muboshgu. Not to mention the existence of hundreds of articles of hundreds of athletes less notable than Blevins. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. And those articles to me are fairly routine. Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but in this case the "other stuff" is all minor league athletes, either way there are more than enough sources to justify this article's passing of GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another AfD where the nominator does absolutely no research on the subject and assumes just because he never reached the major leagues he can't possibly pass GNG. Alex (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this early as a Keep but 2 editors have disagreed so reopened to keep everyone happy. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed as going off topic - Made a silly edit summary and have apologized for it so me thinks it's time to just move on, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. And it was nice of you to be so gracious about it (note the "Fuck off" in the edit summary). - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you both spoke to me like ~~shite~~ crap and ~~I sure as hell don't tolerate it,~~ Anyway I've apologized [6]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stay civil here; I really don't like such vulgarity or hostility. If you believe that the article truly fails notability criteria or another rule, just state it well enough to close this discussion. Otherwise, please just stop right here and let the article stay.--ɱ (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't like people who come to my page ranting and raving instead of respectfully and politely asking one simple thing, and saying "just stop right here and let the article stay" is pointless since A. I've apologized and B. I don't plan on closing it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a request, and that's no justification.--ɱ (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm yes it is - Respect and civility works both ways on here, Also you might want to WP:DROPTHESTICK as this is rather pointless ? .... I told someone to fuck off, I then apologized ... so that really should be the end of it (I'm not saying Sorry makes everything okay but one can't really do much more than apologize). –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete To me, Blevins really doesn't seem like a notable person. He does have a fair amount of coverage, but as noted above, it is 'local boy' coverage. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the coverage that Muboshgu found isn't.--ɱ (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Muboshgu listed were all basically the same article about him trying to hang on and keep the dream alive in the independent leagues... thousands of those articles get written all the time. Spanneraol (talk)

I've never seen a requirement that for notability to be established, the articles have to be very diverse and interesting. As long as Blevins is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, the article falls within Wikipedia's notability. It doesn't matter what any editor or baseball fan thinks of what the sources are actually reporting about or anything else, really. The coverage is there.--ɱ (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ^^. The selective use of GNG is telling. Alex (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, tens of thousands of high school athletes would be eligible for Wikipedia pages based on "local boy" and "local girl" stories. A few local stories about a local subject doesn't seem to constitute "significant coverage." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it reaches a certain threshold. Locality of coverage applies to many pages on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with others. Other than the Newsday all of the sources are all localish/routine type coverage that i'd say about 75% current minor leaguers get (if you dig really deep). If he wasn't so run of the mill i'd probably vote keep, but otherwise i'm going delete here.--Yankees10 07:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not the case. Most minor leaguers don't get written up at all, let alone multiple times over multiple years. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it takes 4 or so good solid articles about a player to pass GNG. If you truly dig really deep you can find them. I mean really deep. Not so much for foreign players, but if you are an American kid drafted, you are more than likely going to have numerous localish type coverage articles written about you over the years. That's why I go case by case with these AFD's or when creating an article. And to me this guy is run of the mill with no reason of having an article.--Yankees10 17:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion; I'll stick with Wikipedia's notability criteria, which has no such rule and allows for this article's maintenance.--ɱ (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set rule on how many it takes. For some reason I still don't understand, a particular bullpen catcher got kept with one source. It is hard to find coverage for foreign players, but many American born players get just a line in a "X region players drafted" article, which we can all agree doesn't contribute to GNG. It is rare for one player to be the sole focus of an article, which is why when you string enough of them together, it makes a notable subject, like Blevins. I don't disagree that he's unspectacular as far as baseball bios go, but he seems to pass the threshold of significant coverage in multiple sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Between the article and Muboshgu's sources there are plenty of articles about this subject to easily pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bonehill[edit]

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

Joshua Bonehill-Paine tries very hard to spread lies about himself across the internet. In reality he is a 21-year-old unemployed criminal with no achievements of note, and certainly doesn't warrant a wikipedia page or any biography. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, notable. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: What you have said is basically that you don't like him so he shouldn't have an article. Numerous sources have documented his hoaxes and crimes, and there's a fuck load of articles which would need deleting if we were to delete criminals from wikipedia. This is so close to trolling in itself, that's why I kept deleting the deletion tag. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources which address him directly, therefore meeting WP:BIO. Argument for deletion seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is specifically discouraged. Valenciano (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cover the infamous, as well as the famous. He's not unfamous. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note significant contributions to the article by User:Jooner29 who has declared himself as the subject of the article. As the article says part of his notability is for trolling and hoaxes, this could be seen as a successful example of self promotion, which, in its own circular fashion, may be notable.— Rod ^talk 16:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAntiCauliflower92 is clearly trolling this article with a biased agenda. If you look at the recent edits made by AntiCauliflower92 you will note that he has changed very small but significant details that were noted officially in newspapers. I believe AntiCauliflower92 to be a rival of Bonehill's and his occupation of this article is akin to Bonehill creating the article to fit his agenda. This form of corruption can not be allowed on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooner29 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
— Jooner29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose: On the contrary, I have merely cleared up a few issues and given valid reasons for doing so. As noted in the comment above by Rodw and the "few or no other edits outside this topic" tag above, the article was created by the subject himself, and should be deleted for that reason alone. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not true. I created this and reverted Bonehill's unverifiable claims from it '''tAD''' (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject gets nontrivial coverage from multiple reliable sources and the article does not seem promotional. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with nom and agree with previous keep arguments. WP:Notability is established by various WP:RS, does not seem promotional to me, and any possible WP:NPOV issues can be resolved through consensus and editing.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What an odious chap, but he has made himself notorious enough. Does this fellow have any redeeming qualities? Do we know if he loves his mum? Does he help old ladies across the road? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: WP:NOTFORUM, unless you are in a roundabout way stating that the article has a negative bias, which is kind of easy to do when writing about a criminal '''tAD''' (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I take the point that there are many artcles on people who've broken the law, this doesn't mean that everyone with a criminal record qualifies for a Wikipedia article. This guy is a racist who uses the internet to spread his propaganda, and has paid the price in court. That of itself doesn't make him notable, surely? Neiltonks (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but It meets GNG; this liar/hoaxer/hater has garnered coverage. However, this individual is a publicity hound and it might be more useful to readers to have the article open with something like: Notorious racist, hoax activist Joshua Bonehill... And the page should be protected because this Bonehead will very likely be back to try to edit-in self-aggrandizing material.ShulMaven (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ParlQuest[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable product. The Dissident Aggressor 18:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in books or news. Standard search turned up only advertising. No evidence of any notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't establish notability when I tagged this in September. ~KvnG 19:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. EoRdE6 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ǃXu (god)[edit]

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

~~badly sourced, possibly hoax EoRdE6 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominatorGiven the new sources provided by Fayenatic london on the talk page I withdraw my delete vote and say Keep EoRdE6 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is badly formatted, possibly did not look at WP:BEFORE before nominating. The source referred to above is a reliable one, viz. the official website of the International Astronomical Union's Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN), which maintains the astronomical naming conventions and planetary nomenclature for planetary bodies; this source directly confirms that they named a crater after this Bushman deity, therefore !Xu is an authentic Bushman deity. I have added a few more citations, including a Bushman dictionary by D.F. Bleek whose good authority is noted on the talk page. The page has been present for 10 years and was created by an editor who is no longer active but seems to have done plenty of good-faith work, so there are no tell-tale signs of a hoax. (I should know – at one time two of the ten longest-standing hoaxes on the list were found by me.) – Fayenatic London 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic london's sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 20 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lanfield[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, relying entirely on primary sources with not one whit of reliable source coverage in the citation pool. Also there's an evident conflict of interest here, if you compare the creator's username to the title of the subject's forthcoming book. He might certainly qualify for an article if proper sourcing can be located and added, but he's not entitled to keep a primary-sourced promotional advertisement — so, as always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if a good version can be written, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with Bearcat's analysis, and moreover could not find any significant independent coverage of this guy. No evidence he satisfies WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party reliable sources. Linking to the entry for his book in the local public library is either a joke or ... well, I can't imagine, although it's nice to see a public library getting some attention. SPA and possible COI. LaMona (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Shore Town Cup[edit]

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

local youth hockey tourney. not even faintly notable John from Idegon (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of this tournament's existence outside of primary sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really notable but its quite a well done article...EoRdE6 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of an article isn't a factor in keeping or deleting the article, it is based on whether or not the article meets wikipedia's guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind the original purpose of Wikipedia was to cover everything a human could ever want to know. What do you accomplish by deleting this article?EoRdE6 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on what subjects qualify for articles, that's what. If you'd like more information, I see that a comprehensive series of useful links were posted to your talk page when you joined Wikipedia a couple months back; I encourage you to review them. Ravenswing 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EoRdE6. All this article can do is help a person looking for information. Aidan721 20:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sheesh, I'm a native of the area, and this youth tourney blows holes through WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. If they want to put information out, they can start their own website -- hey, so they have -- because Wikipedia is not a web host. Ravenswing 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability for this event so it fails to meet our standards. On top of that, there really isn't much to the article anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Titar[edit]

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

Subject does not seem notable, and intent behind creation seems to be promotional. No actual references given. Benboy00 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---I had the great pleasure to work with the late Prof. Denisyuk, which is mentioned in the "Titar" article. Yuri would have been very angry about the fakt to be referenced in the context of the fake claims by Bleen. Furthermore the word _holographic_ has a precise physical meaning and is not to be confused with some 3D projection into e.g. (synthetic) fog. The "Titar" article definitely is missused for promotion.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.5.123 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do seem to be some problems relating to this article. First, there are the two SPAs who are responsible for most of the article. Then, a search on Google Scholar turns up the book (cited all of 9 times) and a few articles, none cited often and some not cited at all. I was able to ascertain that he has published in reputable journals and in conference proceedings, but can find no indication that his work has had impact on any scientific field. If kept, the article would need references, and the long bibliography should be replaced with a very short list of his most influential works (if there are influential works). LaMona (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the article is beyond repair:
- POV - The article along with several other Bleen Inc. personnel article (some already delete, i.e. Oleg Kokhan) ware crated by the same two editors roughly at the time of Bleen compounding campaign start, apparently in attempt to grant it some credibility, by claiming a lot of (unsourced) credibility and notability for them.
- Verifiability - The article highly praises credibility of the described person, while failing to provide any sources at at all. They mention some of the published work, but the rest of the article and biography is just a long list of claims lacking any sources. Googling the person's name in several languages including Russian didn't reveal any valid sources for such claims/
- Notability - The person appears to be nowhere as notable as original authors try to portray him ("(...)scientific work is well-recognized around the world"). While it is true that he has several publications, there is no (or very little) citations of his work, no references, no references in professional or general press (unrelated to a recent Bleen campaign).
To summarize: I say the article created for the sole purpose of promoting person's company/project, which no sources, credibility or notability, should be deleted. Zigmar (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Shumate[edit]

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

I can't make sense of this. The only reference is for someone else, and although the books etc exist, a quick search failed to find a link between this name and the pseudonyms. If she is notable, still needs rewriting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a couple of book mentions of the subject ([7] which confirms the "Nancy Clemens" pen name and [8] which contradicts the husband's name from the first paragraph though), but such brief mentions fall short of demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm working on this. There were citations hidden in the text which I fixed. Unfortunately some of them were original research. I found the VIAF identifier for her, but even the libraries were confused by her many pseudonyms and none of them included any reference to her name as Fern Shumate. I did find one of her books under the Gish name in a bibliography. I don't know if I can bring this up to notability, but I hope folks will be open-minded -- this is some truly pulpy pulp fiction from the 30's and 40's and it would be nice not to lose the bit of info that we have about this writer. She may never surface again. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:49, 20 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 snow close/speedy delete. I'm closing this early for two reasons: the first is that half of the article is a pretty blatant hoax, created by a person I've just blocked for creating multiple hoax articles. That he's also potentially a sockpuppet just sort of adds on to the pile. The other reason is that while the first season's episodes do exist (or are at least announced), there is no reason to create a new article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Daniel Tiger's Neighbourhood Episodes[edit]

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

The article contains information on an as yet unreleased series of this show. I can't find any information online about it. There is no reference, and the author has not responded to my request for one. I believe these have been made up. But it's not OBVIOUS, so a speedy is not appropriate. If they're NOT made up, they should be added to the other episode summaries at the Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood article, and this article should still be deleted. ubiquity (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on notablity, but this appears to be a real list of episodes.PBS However, I do see hints of close paraphrasing. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes in Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood are real, and match some of the ones on the PBS page you cite. The PBS page does not mention the future episodes listed in List of Daniel Tiger's Neighbourhood Episodes, the article under discussion. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The episode list at Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood#Episodes is perfectly adequate; there has been no discussion of splitting it off to a new article. I strongly suspect that the episodes listed as "Series 2" in this new article are invented; at any rate, they are unsourced. (It is true that the episode descriptions on the original page need rewriting to avoid copying the PBS episode summaries, but that's a side point.) Finally, if a separate episode list page is desired, it should be created at List of Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood episodes, following US spelling (since it is an American program), not "Neighbourhood". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No justified reason for breaking this out from the main article, and it's pretty much an open target for fancrufters and fantasy TV vandals. And oh yeah...the article creator is a sockmaster, so article created in violation of block, so any G5 Speedy should be supported. Nate • (chatter) 03:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Joshi[edit]

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

Speedy deleted on A7 grounds, then recreated again. Editor alleges some notability, so I'm afd'ing this for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is just a biography of a person. Why deleting?? He is a notable person.

Nareh (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)I have deleted all promotional content.[reply]

Delete - He's as about notable as my left foot!, No evidence of notability, Also the article's clearly promo which doesn't help. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt as we define notability. This is a BLP disaster. Honestly, take a look at the horrible sources - press releases and some insider Urban music awards? Is there anything about this person that does not scream run of the mill music industry scut worker? How can any reasonable person not see that this is little more than a desperate attempt at publicity by cyber-squatting on Wikipedia's web site? Does anybody else see that this is a SPA spammer who continues to abuse editing privileges and should be blocked indef? Sorry for being so harsh, but this is the bazillionth spammer here at AfD this month. I'm sick of the total insincerity of people abusing Wikipedia, which is, after all, a private not-for-profit. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current references consist of: sites that simply press releases, the subject's own Twitpic account, a crowdsourced directory of business startups, a non-Archived deadlink to a page on planetdnb.com whose URL contains "/forum/10-plugs", and several webpages that don't include the word "Joshi". Clearly none of these are reliable sources with significant coverage of the article's subject, therefore no evidence he meets WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He founded a website. Let's wait until he gets more coverage than that before we recreate the article. I'm not seeing anything for "majorfm" "joshi" "people's choice". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with those above. Note that User:Nareh is the creator of the article and its primary author. Nareh, assuming good faith, you should study both reference style (and the pull-down menu "Cite" can help when editing), and the WP:RS page. Also, using the "show preview" option at the bottom of the screen means that you don't have to edit the same article once a minute to get it right ;-). It definitely makes editing less nerve-racking. LaMona (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is overly promotional. The sources are local promotional coverage or PR pieces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Matt Taylor (scientist). Redirect and possible merge

The consensus that this event does not meet WP:EVENT is clear (sometimes that point is made via WP:NOTNEWS, but the two are related.)
No strong argument was presented against a redirect, some redirect/merge is preferred as a result by WP:ATD.
Concerns about how much if anything to merge have a valid basis in policy, but more properly the domain of discussions at the Taylor biography and talk page.
Concerns about whether the Taylor biography should be deleted per WP:BLP1E are at this point best addressed in an AfD on Taylor.

--j⚛e decker ^talk 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirtstorm[edit]

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

One-off event, already briefly mentioned at Matt Taylor (scientist). Separate article would give the controversy undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ghmyrtle. Recommend deletion. beefman (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As things stand right now, it does not meet the standards of notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. If several years from now, this incident will be remembered and mentioned in reliable sources, and prove itself to be something of importance, an article can be created then.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: I would like to point that I don't think this incident is merely "sensational nonsense", like some have argued; in fact the Astronomical Society of Australia itself has commented on it [9]; and this incident touches on very many important and sensitive issues. It's just that as things currently stand, the article is in violation of WP:NOTABLE. Maybe in the future it will qualify, but until/unless this happens, such an article should not be created.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - A notable event in Matt Taylor's life; it possibly could do with a little more weight in the parent article, but there is certainly no need, right now, for a separate article, due to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't understand how you can argue that it isn't notable, however; it blatantly is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - not a notable WP:EVENT but perhaps worth a passing mention in his article (thus giving it the same weight as the event when compared to his broader scientific career). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not erect a permanent memorial to silliness. The guy is a scientist. He wore a dumb shirt. People tweeted. It's an ephemeral space-filler and per WP:NOTNEWS does not warrant an encyclopedic article. There is also no reason to keep a redirect—is every meme-of-the-day and every attack title to be permanently recorded in the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but redirects are cheap. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete the redirect after the name is largely forgotten? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question which of the WP:NOTABLE criteria are not met? There seem to be a significant amount of reliable, secondary sources covering the event itself, though there could be more included in the article. 09I500 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor appears to be a notable scientist, has an article, and this episode is a significant part of his life which should be mentioned but in a way that does not dominate his article. The long-term implications of his choice of clothes, in so far as it highlights the role of women in science, may become notable enough in time to be mentioned in relevant articles, but we don't yet know that. But, the Twitter storm itself, which this article claims to be about, is not notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A twitterstorm indeed is trivial, but the scandal received significant coverage: whole articles were devoted to it in Time.com, Jezebel, et al. The links are at the bottom of the article. Measure for Measure (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Ghmyrtle is correct that this topic does not deserve its own article, I think that it deserves some mention somewhere. Most twitterstorms don't result in significant coverage in supposedly reliable, mainstream sources. This one did. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - delete is not the correct course of action here. It is undoubtedly notable enough to include in at least some detail on the parent page. JT_dale^Talk~ 13:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's too soon to know if this will have independent notability - it looks like classic one event stuff at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Relevant to the coverage of the comet but not enough to constitute its own article --109.148.127.93 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguably, Matt Taylor suffers from WP:BLP1E (most of what is on his page, outside of Shirtstorm, is related to the space mission work and less about him,) and we would keep this article and merge Matt's into this, following the same idea over at JetBlue flight attendant incident. The problem is how to acknowledge that in the AFD on this article. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per (to some extent) BLP1E - I personally see no point in the article when IMHO it's better suited at Matts article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Few twitterwars are noteworthy and this isn't one. DuusieDos (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn't a "twitterwar", it's a newsworthy incident about rampant sexism and is certainly notable. Masem notes that Matt Taylor suffers from WP:BLP1E and suggests merging him into the article; I agree. The alternative - subsuming it into an article about the scientist - misses the point of its notability. Ogress _smash! 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, we do need to have some cognizance of the fact that being the first person responsible for landing a probe on a comet is, in the overall scheme of things, more notable and important than wearing an offensive shirt. So, any merger should be of this article into his article - not vice versa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a "the first person responsible for landing a probe on a comet", he is one of thousands of people responsible for landing a probe on a comet - who happens to be the one in charge. Ogress _smash! 22:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he's "in charge", he's the one responsible. If you prefer, he's the first person in charge of landing a probe on a comet. Notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is the "project scientist" but not the project lead. Again, the end result was an effort by thousands, at the end of the day. If he never wore that shirt, but the project to land remained successful, he wouldn't be considered notable, so BLP1E is fully in effect here. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "project scientist" is the lead scientist on the project. If leading the first project to land on a comet is notable, then he is notable regardless of the shirt and this should ultimately end up as a footnote on his page, but if we move it there now it will dominate that article, and there is much more to this man's life than a shirt that some people find offensive. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the past space mission project sciences are typically non-notable in their roles. They may be detailed on the project's page, but we don't give separate articles for them unless there is definitely something more noteworthy about them. If the shirt incident never happened, we'd not have an article on Taylor - his notability is weak at best, and better covered within the project article. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "if". But we are getting distracted from the actual issue at hand and the notability of Matt Taylor is a topic for a different AfD. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to keep from merge. There is continuing new coverage and impact relating to misogyny (and cissexism) in the media and releases from astronomical societies stating their position on these issues. Ogress _smash! 04:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The votes for merge seem to be unaware of how insistent the censorship of this event has been in Rosetta (spacecraft) as well as in Matt Taylor, so "merge" or "inclusion" within the other articles are, for now, not available. At the same time I'd like to note, that this vote seems to indicate a consensus that it should be included - whereas on the pages there is a "consensus" that it shouldn't. ----Kiyarrlls-talk 00:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it indicates there may be a place for it elsewhere but that this article shouldn't exist because the event itself isn't notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. If it is not notable enough for inclusion in the Rosetta article then why should it have its own article? Do not call other peoples work on this website "censorship" either, you are here to build an encyclopedia --5.81.52.82 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; Merge later after Matt Taylor's page is better developed so that this will not dominate the article. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A small follow-up: as of this writing, this page has more citations than Matt Taylor's page. Either the latter is in great need of expansion, or there really are more reliable sources about Dr. Taylor's shirt than there are about Dr. Taylor himself. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wbm1058 is right. This should not be on Wikipedia. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the most pure example of recentism, and social media's ability to blow things so out of proportion as to be unrecognisable. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary for this comment is "Burn it with fire", which doesn't seem very NPOV. Ogress _smash! 08:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should agree to return to this issue after the controversy dies down? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matt Taylor (scientist) Avono (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will be forgotten in two weeks. There is 0 notability for this "shirt controversy". Just because a few newspaper articles also reported on that, this does not warrant space in an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive which automatically makes an article for every newspaper report. StoneProphet (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a searchable term, and we should have something on it somewhere for that reason. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of searchable terms in the internet. They may even get an article in a newspaper here and there. But we still don't have an article for everything which gets a brief 3 days mention in the news and some social media forums. This is a poster child case for WP:NOTNEWS. StoneProphet (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, sufficiently a different topic from Rosetta that it requires it's own article. Artw (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the person's article if the word is deemed useful to get readers to the subject. If all you can say about the matter is "he wore a bad shirt on tv, many criticized, many others criticized the critics", that shows no lasting scope or impact. Tempest in a teapot, soon forgotten. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now however, we must all be observant. Perhaps there might be more, perhaps not. However, make sure this doesn't overshadow the Rosetta mission mention on Matt's page. This is probably still a sore thing for him, so we as wikipedians should make sure to use highly objective wording. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head on why I think we should keep this article separate for now, with plans to merge it after expanding the article on Matt Taylor. Thanks for describing it better than I could. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOTNEWS; if this actually becomes a lasting subject of encyclopedic significance, it can be expanded again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect/merge. no need for it to be a separate article. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. One off event, it's already in the man's article and that's all that's needed here (if that). Volunteer Marek 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So this "storm" happened on 12 November, and Wikipedia's biography of the scientist responsible for the storm was created 15 November 2014. One of our WP:Five pillars should be about respecting all living people, and not just editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: I don't know what your comments mean. Can you clarify? Ogress _smash! 04:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of the creation of his biography clearly implies WP:BLP1E. Perhaps he is notable for other things and that's just an oversight. Per the article, on 14 November 2014, Dr Taylor made a public apology. “I have made a big mistake,” he said. “I have offended people and I am sorry about this”. That's good enough for me. Grant him a mulligan. Forgive and forget. Sure daily newspapers will write about it, but that doesn't mean we should make it part of his permanent encyclopedic record. – Wbm1058 (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Matt Taylor. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or teh other. Retartist (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not going to make an article for every sensationalist controversy there is. Footnote on Matt Taylor's article is fine. Loganmac (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and frankly Matt Taylor. He's "notable" for one event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article is an even worse example of news coverage. At best merge, but preferably delete them both. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event has relatively little to do with the man who wore the shirt and a lot more to do with how social media and news media interact. Enough big names and major media outlets jumped on the bandwagon to make it well sourced. No need to merge, as there is already more than sufficient coverage at the article on the man himself. This can always be relisted for deletion once it can be shown that the shirt's impact was as long-lasting as a fruit fly. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would partially agree with this - merging to the bio would present weight issues. A link from the bio to this page should remain though. Artw (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the bio per WP:NNC. Ultrauber (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It got hijacked by the SJWs who use this as a plattform to further insult and discredit Dr Taylor. This article is entirely designed to make it look as if the criticism was valid and as if the insults didn't happen. This is a shame for wikipedia. Helester (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, seriously? Delete because you dislike the content? Your edit history is essentially just "Shirtstorm" as well. Ogress _smash! 17:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, delete because the article reflects propaganda, and not the truth (they deleted the insults several times) Although this was a serious issue reported by the media. This is not an issue of whether I like it or not its an issue about misinformation and POV. And the people "working" on it have their reasons to change it the way they did. And I do not think it is savable at this point. Helester (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have looked much into it if you think that the article was "hijacked by the SJWs... to further insult and discredit Dr Taylor. I'm fairly sure the article was created for an entirely different reason, that is, to discredit the "SJW"-boogeymen --5.81.52.82 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the current version M.T got "criticised" by "commentators" nice and vague nothing about insults but a quote "because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display" why do you think they have picked this one and deleted the insults I have posted with a reference? Oh no but look at that poor woman who has shown a "reaction" towards M.T! She was told to kill herself! Again an excellently chosen tweet. They could have shown both sides ( like they did at a certain point of the article where both of it was included, the insults towards M.T and towards R.E, for a short time before the SJW crowd took over) or they could have posted the tweet asking for M.T to lose his job or the ones calling him an asshole, jerk and scum (all of these were tweets I provided and which were deleted in favour of the sexism one) and we could have also posted tweets directed at R.E asking her to educate herself and engaging in a respectful discussion but this would be extremely one sited, right this would only show the one point of view and not reality, like it is right now. Read the article and then tell me again its not POV and propaganda. I have entered Wikipedia around I think 2 weeks ago or something and have made an article about descaler, about filthy frank and this one, in case you are accusing me of something. Helester (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your other articles are not in your edit history. I see Christina Hoff Summers and a few minor edits and that you created Shirtstorm as one of your very first edits ever: "Shirtstorm (#shirtstorm) also called ShirtGate (a play on the words "Shirt" and GamerGate" is the name of a harassment campaign against Dr Matt Taylor." Ogress _smash! 21:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

here you go https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entkalker&action=history this was the first thing I did, looks like I am on trial huh? For what actually? Nothing to say to the things I addressed? Thought so. Helester (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alx Beatz Original[edit]

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

Note: Administratively adding Aleksandar Gavrilovic Alexx. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable musician; autobiographical failing WP:MUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I smell copyright infringement, and if it is found I'd be happy to csd delete. That aside, I agree with the nominator's rational. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take a look at Aleksandar Gavrilovic Alexx, which is a duplicate or closely related article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joseph Garrett. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stampy's Lovely World[edit]

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

Article does not indicate any notability and is almost blank, with the exception of a rather uninformative infobox on the side. Biblio worm 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy delete category but doesn't quite fit the no context or no content criteria for that deletion method. No evidence of sufficient notability outside of World of Warcraft found in my searches. There's an article on Wikia about it, which is enough for something of this level of notablility. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with a redirect to Joseph Garrett, hadn't done that part of my homework correctly so didn't realise he had an article. Good catch NinjaRobotPirate. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:18, 23 November 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) 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. It would be a fine redirect to an article on "Stampy" if one were to exist. (Which it shouldn't, at least not for now, since the only dedicated article on the YouTuber is this and the rest are passing mentions.) I think this nominatino could have waited more than three hours to see where the article might have been going. If nothing happens in a day or two, it should fit A7 as web content with no indication of importance. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 02:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joseph Garrett per above ("It would be a fine redirect to an article on "Stampy" if one were to exist.") Even after searching WP for Stampy, didn't know he had a page. Redirects are cheap. czar ♔ 06:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joseph Garrett, Stampy's creator. Probably too soon for an article as of yet. Can be recreated once there is significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:23, 20 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. An in-passing mention in one source is not enough. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Green Gangsters[edit]

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

Obscure wrestling tag team. Championship is from an obscure minor league. No indication of notability and no sources. Safiel (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Calling SHIMMER a minor league is laughable. Reliable reference indicates notability for the team. Current champions in a major promotion, thus fulfilling the WP:ATHLETE (yes, it does apply) requirement for having competed at the fully professional level of their sport. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of lasting notability for this team from a small-time independent wrestling promotion. Trivial coverage in a single source relating to one of the team's memebers is indication of unsuitability for an article. WP:ATHLETE nowhere close to being met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of this tag team.Mdtemp (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:23, 20 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.WP:SNOW, highly inaccurate list that needs WP:TNT (Allison wasn't killed in the off-season and Petty was a planned retirement). Secret ^account 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driver career-ending crashes[edit]

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

WP:Original research Article with poorly defined criteria, indeed it seems to contradict it's own criteria by including Lee Petty's whos crash did not end his career. The criteria appears to be arbitrary in nature as the article itself specifically mentions instances where the crash has no apparent bearing on the ending of the career. Career-ending crashes is a highly subjective term, drivers end their careers for many reasons, that there last race may involve a moderate to serious injury might not be the reason for retirement. They may just be unable to secure a job with a team following his recovery. The article also mentions drivers whose last race was a crash. There are no references, but additional to that I can find no compliation of such incidents on the internet that is in any way comprehensive. There are a great many sources for drivers who have been killed, but for drivers who retire after a crash it would have to be created piecemeal - in the manner of original research. Also as the term "Career-ending" is highly subjective, the notability and/or encyclopedic content must be in doubt. Falcadore (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that the criteria is foggy. Drivers end their careers for multiple reasons, and short of death, crashes are usually only one factor in their decision to not return. Referencing such decisions is difficult as they are usually personal matters. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't want to jump straight in with an AfD myself, preferring to wait and see where the article went, but quite frankly, most of the entries right now are bogus. Lee Petty didn't have a career ending crash, and nor did Richard Petty, or Davey Allison. Beyond that, the inclusion criteria is always going to be very woolly; as pointed out above, there are a heck of a lot of reasons for a driver retiring. "Career-ending crashes" also implies that it is their injuries that prevented them from returning, not a personal choice, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that the criteria is foggy. This fogginess makes the topic non-encyclopedic. Sourcing an article of this type is problematic and non-existent in this case. Royal broil 04:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Secret. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kvadraturen skolesenter (bus stop)[edit]

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

Bus stops are not, per se, notable; this is one of a series created by the same user, all of which are simply a list of bus lines serving a stop. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one more in a recent spate of bus stop AfDs. I've left a note on the user's talk page. Deadbeef 04:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per the previous AfD about Amss125's bus stop article creations (which should also be closed per WP:SNOW as well). Zero evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Secret. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vestre Strandgate (bus stop)[edit]

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

Bus stops are not notable per se. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being discussed as a bulk delete here — BranStark (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No they are not. Lots of bus stop-related articles up recently... Deadbeef 04:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Style Beef Entrails[edit]

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

The topic is adequately covered in offal, and this article is mostly copied from Baidu Baike. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Sammy1339 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on me for not recognizing the subject by the English name alone. Neutral The Chinese forms yield far more mentions (including a lot of restaurant guides/travel guides though). See also zhwp's 牛雜. Hong Kong street food and hawkers are also good associations to consider because that's another major way this is sold other than noodle shops. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 20 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. No prejudice to recreation of an article on the cultural phenomenon per Mark viking. Also, Stable_marriage_problem#Similar_problems describes a number of similar, but distinct, problems, so merging them all into a single article doesn't seem to be a good idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Bazaar[edit]

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

Poor quality article which appears to duplicate the stable marriage problem article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stable marriage problem. ~KvnG 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go further, Merge this one, Stable marriage problem, and Stable roommates problem all to Stable matching algorithm : Noyster (talk), 17:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete Not a single reliable source (and the sources listed don't even mention a "marriage bazaar", making this effectively unsourced). Unsourced info is not suitable for merging either, so deletion is the only viable option. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is a little tricky. On one hand the article emphasizes algorithms one might use in matching partners in a marriage bazaar. In this context I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing algorithms for a bazaar or "the marriage bazaar problem". On the other hand, the cultural concept of a marriage bazaar is well known in India (maybe in Afghanistan, Iran, and Hong Kong, too)--based on a quick search, this topic could be notable. Ultimately, the poor quality of the article that decides it. Best to blow it up per WP:TNT. But there is no prejudice to recreation of an article on the cultural phenomenon. --Mark viking (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Thai[edit]

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

Alleged to be A7 eligible, however the person in question is published and there are sources for the material given, which justifies eligibility for inclusion here - albeit barely - so I'm putting this here to let the community weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be notable sometime soon, but all of the sources appear to be primary and I'm not able to find any others sufficient to pass WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and possibly speedily) - when the nom states "alleged to be A7 eligible" I take it they mean Eligible for speedy deletion under A7. If so then yes (unfortunately the publications and memberships are not enough for WP currently because the attention in 3rd party reliable, independent, sources is not there). No indication of why this person is notable has been asserted. This bio fails WP:BIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. However, as Rhododendrites it's possible (or even likely) that this person will be notable in the future but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until they're notable the page has to be deleted--Cailil ^talk 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible assertion of notability and no references. This is basically a recitation of the thus-far career of a graduate student created by a SPA. Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He clearly does not (yet) pass WP:PROF, so any notability would have to rest on WP:GNG for his activism. But we need multiple reliable in-depth sources that are independent of the subject and about him, and currently we have none. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no indications that this person is notable, and the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Angel Soldier A - Dual Angels[edit]

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

Alleged to be A7 and G11 csd eligible, however the game itself and the material are in decent enough shape that this could be considered a good stub. I checked for a copyvio, and found the material copy/pasted from a wikia site that claims material published is copyleft, in the absence of any other compelling reason to speedy delete I think it better for the article to be afd'd for community input on the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated this page for CSD G11 and A7 since I felt it both relied on promotional content and does not have a claim of significance. All the article states is that it was a scroll shooter made in 2004, how the game is played, and an external link to a gaming website. The article does not meet the general notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:21, 20 November 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) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospeed, to prevent the deletion of the page GA Angel Soldier A - Dual Angels, I need anyone who can fix it, making it meet the general notability guidelines. It's not a promotion, swear. I have never experienced contributing Wikipedia since I experienced contributing Wikia. Can you help me fix it? Muhammadrizkya (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhammadrizkya: Unfortunately, we have different guidelines here on Wikipedia about what kinds of topics should be included than on a Wikia wiki. Generally, the notability of a topic is established by the availability of sources which give an in-depth discussion of that topic. If you can demonstrate that this video game has received significant coverage from third-party reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, critical reviews, etc., then you can establish the subject's notability. Unfortunately, if you are unable to find such sources discussing a topic, no amount of editing can overcome a notability issue. Advice I often give is the amnesia test:

Forget everything you know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
Go online and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on third-party news sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources (Wikia wikis and personal WordPress blogs are not considered reliable enough for Wikipedia)
From your research, and your research only, write an article
If you find that there are few or no reliable sources to use, the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Regards, Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The content of the article appears to have been taken directly from this Wikia article. Accordingly, I have attributed the content to Wikia, since it is available under CC-BY-SA. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. If I could find any decent source about the game, I'd consider redirecting it to Galaxy Angel, but it's not mentioned there and the game appears obscure, so delete for now. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 07:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was also unable to find coverage from reliable third-party sources required for notability. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G5-A7 (non-admin closure) mol uɐɯ 03:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran National Council[edit]

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

Totally insignificant terror group created by the unfamous insignificant son of a very unpopular tyrant, with the money he and his tyrant father stole from Iran. Majority of the people are very content with their government in Iran. Khomeini Fan (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THE ARTICLE QUICKLY Unsigned comment by User:Son of Islamic Revolution, a now-blocked sockpuppet. mol uɐɯ 03:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:48, 20 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 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lister Technologies[edit]

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

There seems to be inadequate evidence of notability-- the references are mere notices or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sources do not seem reliable. Eurodyne (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are notable sources. Karthik (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are a mix of routine company listings, PR and blogs, and searches are turning up nothing better. A company going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 20 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 Stephen Christian. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Water Records[edit]

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

Record label which has exactly one band on its roster--the band of the founder. It is not notable, therefore, also because there is no reliable coverage of this label that discusses it in depth. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' with the band/individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lugnuts. No notability outside the single-signed artist, which is the label owner/founder, making it a vanity label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above - Not sure how I came to write the above !vote but would seem I'm gradually losing the plot . –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Rossi[edit]

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

Notability can not just be inherited from Sheen. The sources cited are not reliable enough to support notability from TMZ, Us Weekly, People, or eonline. Even the New York Daily News is notorious for tabloid gossip. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Hasn't won a notable industry award or made a unique contribution. Mentions in media that I found were related to being associated with Sheen and that would be inherited. I noted that the last nom in 2012 also ended in a delete and the situation hasn't changed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlie Sheen. Nominator's analysis is accurate; no independent notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets as this model was the February 2012 Penthouse Pet. While I have not done an extensive search on this person, there does not initially appear to be enough notability for a separate article on this subject. Guy1890 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Farrar[edit]

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

Mayor of a suburban council for one year then lost council seat. Mostly unreferenced BLP. The only other mayors of that council with articles are people with other claims to notability besides the mayoralty. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is a bit misleading. Mayors normally serve for just one year. She appeared to be a councillor from 2002 to 2008 from the article. I have no opinion on the deletion at this point. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about her term as a councillor (which is really not a claim to notability). I just said that she served a one-year term as a suburban mayor, that that's her only claim to notability, and that she then lost her seat at the next election. I doubt one could find sources to expand this or even verify a lot of what is there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion standards for politicians do not grant an automatic presumption of notability to all mayors. Places where the mayoralty is a ceremonial position where the mayor is chosen by an internal council vote (or by automatic rotation) to a one-year term, in particular, do not confer notability on their mayors — and being a city councillor doesn't make her notable either, as Wikipedia's standards for city councillors are even more restrictive (they can claim an automatic NPOL pass only in cities listed as alpha, beta or gamma class in world city). She could potentially still qualify for an article under WP:GNG if it were properly sourced and genuinely substantive, but in addition to falling short of NPOL she doesn't pass GNG either, as this article relies entirely on primary sources (tables of raw election results, her profile on the website of her own political party) and fails to cite even one legitimately reliable source to support her notability. Which means she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local councilor and short-term mayor of a small city is definitely not notable. Work as an "organisor" even less so.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show she meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Molloy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played in a fully professional league JMHamo (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 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) 21:13, 21 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) 19:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color in Islamic history[edit]

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

This unreferenced stub doesn't actually tell me anything about colours in Islam, other than that there are supposedly "several basic conventions dictating how they are used" (none of which are explained) and that "turquiose and gold have special meanings" (ditto).

I'm not sure what could actually be written here, besides what is covered at Green in Islam. the wub "?!" 00:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a surprisingly old article that doesn't appear to have suffered a WP:TNT in its last ten years to pull content from and appears to be an abandoned piece of WP:OR. Deadbeef 02:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that about it being original research. There is also the question about its notability. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be WP:OR We already have Green in Islam. --Artene50 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Article is not in good shape and could use some attention of a good editor. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Friedmutter[edit]

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

Notability - there is a .PDF of an industry magazine interview from an award. Other sources seem to be press releases and a mention in a gossip article. There are no refs for the claims in the career section. EBY (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appear to be sufficient sources available to support notability (see for example profile in the Las Vegas Sun), plus the major awards. The career section is for the most part sourceable with the refs already included. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Person seems notable enough, but the article needs clean up especially in the career section. Most of this section needs sources and re-writing as it sounds too promotional. Bananacognac (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll make some changes to the career section to get it more tone neutral. 19:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxtronic (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'd merge his wife's article into his, if we must keep one or the other. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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