Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 November	30 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SWIFTest Test Automation System[edit]

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

Promotional, no indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Trivialist (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another attempt of someone connected with company Sensiple to promote them or their products/services. This time it seems to be a Pre-Sales Executive of the company, as stated by the creator of the article in the first version of his user page. There is no trace of notability of this product on the web. There are other products called "Swiftest", but once you have learned to distinguish the one produced by Sensiple from the others, it's clear that if completely fails WP:GNG. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 03:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the ambiguous promotional content. Please check, I have put all the references. It must not be deleted now. Amit.bhagat88 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (IST)
- The article still reads like a brochure for the product, and does not show that SWIFTest Test Automation System meets the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. Also, don't edit or remove other users comments, as you did with LowLevel73 above. And don't remove AFD notices from articles; doing so does not stop the AFD process. Trivialist (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, all promotional content from the article has been removed. The article has been checked many times and now it neat and clean, please remove the deletion tag. Thankyou Amit.bhagat88 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.166.218 (talk)
  - Again, that's not how it works. Why should SWIFTest have an article? Is it important or notable in any way? Trivialist (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, It is important. It is very unique with so many features inside which a tester would understand and its free. SO, I guess people should be aware of such tool & use it and I have seen so many such different tools' pages already created on the wikepedia. So, why not this? Moreover, I have given so many references for it, so whats the harm? Amit.bhagat88 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2014 (IST)
- Please remove the Deletion tag now. :) Amit.bhagat88 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2014 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.166.218 (talk)

Delete - No coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.Vrac (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and basically an advertisement. BenLinus1214 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SWIFTest Test Automation System fails to satisfy either WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG; the page is a textbook example of an advertisement masquerading as an article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:22, 6 December 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. SpinningSpark 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Falcon[edit]

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

Wow, really?!? [redacted personal attack on article subject] For policy and technical sake, this is basically a WP:1E subject and should be deleted for this reason. Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - as nominator. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above. Your nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not notable as an actor. It's a more... personal... situation that's made him notable. Extensive coverage in multiple media sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree, so I'll add notable for one ~~event~~ "thing" (as it were in this case) as additional justification for deletion. The idea of this BLP article is salacious at best and the sources are tenuous. This guy is no more notable than Brian Zembic, the gambler who got breast implants on a bet. But Zembic is not a "one hit wonder", this guy is. Falcon thinks that if he does porn, he won't ever be taken seriously. I have news for him, its already happened and the article doesn't help his circumstances. Plus, I can find sources on a great many subjects, but it does not make them Encyclopedia worthy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a heck of a time trying to delete Zembic too. Wikipedia may not be news, but that doesn't mean that what receives coverage in the news is not worth including in Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk)

That's exactly my point, and I agree about Zembic. In my opinion his article is worth keeping because he is notable for more than just the breast implants even if they are potentially temporary. Falcon on the other hand has had a large penis his entire life and that is all that the guy is known for. Guinness will acknowledge the World's largest natural breasts, but not Falcon. Why are we memorializing a "big dick" in an encyclopedia? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable of one event is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A body member is an event? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're applying the "spirit" of the policy versus just the "letter of the law", then yes. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. "Event" means "event"; there is no "notable for just one thing" deletion criterion. "Otho the Fat is known only for his reign as king of Graustark, delete per BIO1E" won't cut it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No lack of coverage, and there is precedent ;) John and Lorena Bobbitt

But that's not how WP works. Because of WP:OTHERSTUFF, your comment has no merit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment has merit according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The individual clearly has notability on the WP:GNG criteria: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Does anyone dispute that? You seem to be saying that Falcon is not notable because his notability derives from his penis; e.g. notability based on penis is unacceptable for Wikipedia. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia policy to deny notability based on body characteristics. John Bobbitt also derives his notability from his penis and the community has accepted that article for quite a while now, so I see no reason to not accept Mr. Falcon's notability. WP:OTHERSTUFF states: "while these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". My cogent argument is that the article meets notability requirements that should not be ignored just because some find the subject matter distasteful, particularly given that the subject matter is already the source of notability in other articles. Vrac (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess its your comparison of the John and Lorena Bobbitt vs. Falcon that I don't agree with. Bobbit is famous for what was done to him, it coincidentally involved his penis and his wife and a lot of other drama. So I find your comparison and logic flawed and not supportive of your argument. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there would be an article for sure if she had cut his finger off. Vrac (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if I understand your logic correctly... "Dick" articles should exist in an Encyclopedia because they are about "dicks"? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I'm saying that articles that have established notability per GNG should not be deleted because the subject matter offends you. Vrac (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG for his huge penis. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, how so? I'd really like to hear how you get past the "Presumed" section of GNG? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Presumed" section in GNG is difficult to apply in practice except for clear cases. There are several categories of articles on Wikipedia, which at least some people would find problematic under "presumed". In this case, there has been wide and sustained coverage, which I think is critical here. Perhaps an article entitled Jonah Falcon's huge penis would be more specific to actually notability, but that would just be wrong. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "wide and sustained coverage", the sources cited seem to make him primarily the butt of a joke versus any actual reporting of news. If this meets your criteria for a WP:RS, it would seem that we're lowering the bar pretty far. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. No basis for deletion actually based in deletion policy or guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I understand the one event concern but when someone is the main subject of an HBO documentary and of a Channel 4 documentary he is clearly not a low-profile individual as prescribed in the WP:BLP1E policy. Cavarrone 10:16, 7 December 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 Jesse Barfield#Later life. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Barfield[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass GNG or ATHLETE. The fight would be a BLP1E matter, and that source alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability. OK with a redirect. Wizardman 22:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's close, but I think he fails GNG. Also, pretty much all of the coverage seems to center on either the fight or his position change.Redirect is a better option. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "Later life" section of the Jesse Barfield article. Spanneraol (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spanneraol. A legitimate search term. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. There's some coverage, but not enough for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect to Jesse Barfield's page for now. But if he signs with a team it should be re-directed to that team's minor league page.--Yankees10 23:19, 5 December 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) 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nindo Shaher[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, not a single reference at all. Article was PRODed and removed by IP 182.182.66.226 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it exists then it's about equivalent to a Parish - which is enough to pass wp:NPLACE. The only question is whether it exists or whether it's a hoax. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search confirms that Nindo Shaher is a real place.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, it exists and should be kept. However, the article needs cleanup. Fai zan 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale by Neonchameleon. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs cleanup relating to sources and other aspects, although it seems notable. BenLinus1214 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a real place as noted above. The article was extensively copied from this website, so I removed the obvious copyright violations. I tagged for citations text I could for sources for but were not obviously copied. Performed a bit of cleanup. It's better but still needs more work. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:13, 6 December 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. Per the deletion arguments based on actual Wikipedia policies. Sam Walton (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (programming language)[edit]

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

An article on this student project was AfD'd a year ago for being sourced only to blogs and forums, with COI concerns: the author of that article requested speedy deletion before the AfD was closed. This version of the article seems no better. McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about free open source software developed by volunteers interested in AI, it's useful for natural programming languages researchers. Rorman68 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Rorman68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rorman68 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a programming language on Sourceforge with nine reviews. Being useful isn't the same as being notable and Google's first couple of pages gave me nothing that would pass wp:N Neonchameleon (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Innovative and notable programming language, I came across this language when I was checking PWCT once joined The ReactOS Project, PWCT is the most popular educational software on sourceforge and Supernova is integrated with that product. ^[1]^[2]

Progmatwo (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)— Progmatwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are blogs and user-generated sites like Sourceforge, which we do not accept as reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The closest to a usable source was the TechWell article, but realistically, this is a pretty marginal source and it only offers a fairly trivial mention. Googling turned up nothing. This topic wasn't notable last year, nothing has changed, and it's still not notable. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The development of the Supernova language has ceased, but it's still notable language and great addition to the field of Natural Language Processing.AndreLuiz19 (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — AndreLuiz19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I don't agree with the main idea behind the language, but the problems section in the article is very useful, the language is notable and this Arabic book by Wael Hassan talk in many pages about the language problems ^[3]. Supernova is known as an Arabic programming language and there are many news and technical articles about the language written in Arabic. Many students are using it in our school to write simple and small programs. IbnNile (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — IbnNile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ https://www.reactos.org/node/834
^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop/
^ http://kutub.info/library/book/11490

Delete. Sourced only to blog posts and forums; fails WP:GNG. The WP:ITSUSEFUL comments above should not count for much; likely sockpuppetry aside, deletion debates should focus on policy-based decisions, not personal feelings. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PS it turns out that there's a past history of sockpuppetry on this subject. I have reopened an SPI: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahmoud Fayed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't waste my valuable time and i respect other people's time.Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the few Natural languages that are available in this research area, according to my knowledge we have Inform7, Shakespeare, Supernova and Wolfram Alpha.HSPLNPL (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC) — HSPLNPL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The article is not fair and half of the article about language problems Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The issue here is the absence of reliable sources by which we can establish notability for the topic. The keep !votes haven't provided any additional sources; without those, we just don't have enough good material on which to base an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:27, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Afghanistan[edit]

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

This is an essay about an abandoned idea from 2 years ago as the UK troops were pulling out. It misrepresents both the idea and the sources - it was NEVER about the language. EBY (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the misrepresentation looks like a SYNTH of the abandoned idea from 2 years ago and a think piece from 40 years ago. EBY (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay - opinion and original research. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "vanity, vanity, all is vanity." This is the ultimate essay of unfulfilled think tank dreams. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SOFTDELETE.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sibashis Pradhan[edit]

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

Unsourced and promotional biography of an individual who does not appear to be notable per wikipedia standards. Only find trivial mentions in some news articles such as [2] and [3] (the latter may not even be the same person). Abecedare (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 29 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. Per the analysis of SpinningSpark. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nurture Nature Center[edit]

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

Non notable local center. Despite the long list of references, none or almost none seem adequate; most are merely references to general government sites about flood preparedness and the like; the others are routine notices in local papers.

It reads like a press release, but it does not seem to be copied directly from any source I could quickly find. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (vote apparent by following statement by editor User:Mrtl11, with summary vote added and with reformatting by doncram)

The article should not be deleted. This Center has clearly achieved some notoriety and it is regional not local. The reviewer seems to have read the references too hastily in concluding otherwise.

The review states that “most [of the citations] are merely references to general government sites about flood preparedness and the like.” Here is the actual breakdown.

There are thirty-seven cites in the article. Of these, only one is to a “general government site” that does not specifically reference the Center discussed in the article. That one cite is note four, which provides background information about NOAA’s Science on a Sphere ("SOS").

Of the remaining thirty-six references, nine are to government websites. However, they are not general cites, but all specifically reference the Center. That they reference the Center in the context of more general discussions does not minimize the organization's importance, but just the opposite.

The nine government cites specifically referencing the Center fall into three categories:

(1) Six of the nine confirm awards of governmental grants to the Center, most also describing the nature of the work the Center would perform under the grants. The Wikipedia article would have been subject to challenge had no support been provided for the claim that these grants were received. Apart from being necessary components to show the reliability of the Wiki article, the cites also support notability. Five of the six are highly competitive federal grants, which are only awarded if there is a broader national purpose achieved by doing so. An example is the Sea Grant referenced in note 30. Possibly the reviewer failed to open the text on the grants that is included on that page, and thus overlooked that the grant to this Center is listed and described, along with nine other grants all of which went to major universities (Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Rutgers etc.). Grants of this nature are simply not awarded to organizations if their work is of only limited local significance. What is particularly striking is that not one, but multiple federal agencies in a short period of time found this young Center’s work significant enough on a national level to warrant such awards.

(2) Two references are government web pages that make available to the public work product of the Center, namely its script on flooding. These cites, in addition to specifically referencing the Center, are evidence that an important federal agency (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) found the Center’s work product to be of sufficient importance to share on an official government site.

(3) The final government cite lists the locations of all SOS exhibits, including the one at the Center. Placing the Center in this context is useful in evaluating the importance of being selected as one of a limited number of SOS sites worldwide.

The review not only mistakenly characterizes the government references as general ones, but also mischaracterizes the non-government references as “routine notices in local papers”.

A closer reading indicates that none of the references provided are actually routine notices. All are substantive, authored articles about the role of the Center in the region and beyond. A Google search makes clear that if routine notices published by local newspapers had been included, far more references would have been given, as there are often notices in the news media about events occurring at this Center.

It is also incorrect to state that the notices are from local papers. Wikipedia’s policy for organizations, which is still under discussion, provides that “Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.”

The Wikipedia article on this Center includes eleven references to regional media, as well as a citation to World News. No citations are provided to news sources of solely local circulation. The regional sources cited are the Morning Call, the Express Times and WFMZ television, all of which are circulated throughout the Lehigh Valley. The Lehigh Valley is described in Wikipedia as “the fastest growing and third most populous region in the state of Pennsylvania with a population of 821,623 residents as of the 2010 U.S. Census.” The citations to news sources distributed throughout this populous region meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability for an organization, and cannot be trivialized as merely “local” in import.

In sum, the comments proposing the article for deletion are factually mistaken. As such, they do not provide a basis for deletion.

-- User:Mrtl11)

Keep. There actually is coverage of this nonprofit organization. --do ncr am 18:38, 20 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG coverage. -- GreenC 20:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

I will say up front that I am affiliated with this organization and do not have citations for every one of the statements I will make, but I can assure the Wikipedia editors that this organization is not what the gentleman who recommended deletion described. NNC’s flood-related work, in particular, has attracted attention from all corners of the country and even beyond.

The Wikipedia article already pointed out that NNC’s Rising Waters program is one of the programs used with Science on a Sphere exhibits across the globe. What the article did not say is that the flood outreach materials NNC created several years ago are also regularly requested and used nationwide. Those who have specifically contacted NNC requesting these materials include the National Weather Service Forecast Offices in Alaska, California, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee; the Training Center for the National Weather Service in Missouri; and the Eastern Region of the National Weather Service, which covers 21 states, from Maine to northern Georgia, and westward to Ohio. The materials have also been in demand by emergency management agencies across the country (the most recent one last week was from Iowa) and by schools in many different locations. In 2013, twelve thousand copies of NNC’s Focus on Floods materials were reprinted for a school district in another region of the state, and less than two weeks ago, two hundred of the coloring books concerning flood preparedness were sent to the Washington DC government for teachers and students in Washington DC’s public schools, to complement the demonstrations they give with the floodplain simulation model.

NNC’s social science research, which is still in progress, is garnering similar attention. In just the last few months, NNC’s staff has been called upon to present the results of its NOAA–funded study on Flood Warning messages at: a webinar for the Silver Jackets (a joint project of multiple federal and state agencies devoted to flooding) in November; a National Webinar for the Army Corps of Engineers in October; a nationwide webcast for NOAA staff for NOAA’s Science Days program in September (a program that included as well NNC briefings to NOAA leadership and Congressional staff); a presentation at the National Weather Service’s Flash Flood Summit earlier in September; and a presentation at an international world weather conference sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization in August. Earlier, the findings of the study were summarized at to the annual conference of the American Meteorological Society, in a presentation that is available on their website. NNC staff have also made presentations during these same periods to many regional groups, including the New Jersey Association of Floodplain Managers and Pennsylvania and New Jersey emergency management organizations.

The events NNC holds at its large facility in the city of Easton also have impact beyond the immediate local area. In the first place, as the Wiki article already noted, NNC’s methods of engaging the community are designed to serve as a model for engagement for other communities. Equally important, the “community” NNC serves does not just comprise the city where the facility is located (about 27,000 people), but other nearby populations as well, including among them the city of Allentown (nearly 120,000) and Bethlehem (approximately 75,000), which are both significantly nearer to NNC than Kennedy Airport is to the World Trade Center in New York. NNC also receives visitors from northern New Jersey, which is directly across the river from the facility. A series of radio programs on WDIY, a public radio station headquartered in Allentown that is aired throughout the Lehigh Valley, is just one illustration of the interest NNC’s work has generated regionally. Those programs, and some other references that are not yet part of the Wiki article, need to be added. Another addition that can be included shortly is a link to a new website that NNC will be launching in December. The website, which will allow residents of communities impacted by floods to share their stories and learn from each other, is made possible through a grant from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under a contract with FEMA, two other government agencies that NNC has been working with, which are not yet mentioned in the Wiki article.

Hopefully, when these citations are added, Wikipedia will see fit to close this deletion discussion and keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNCRHC (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I realize that there is much enthusiasm for this organization, but I do not see sources of the quality that would raise this to an encyclopedic level of notability. It doesn't matter how may cites there are if they are mostly from local news sources that do not have broad impact. Being awarded a <$100K IMLS grant also does not establish notability -- IMLS awards about a hundred of grants per year, mostly for small local projects. Mentions in government documents related to ones' activity also do not establish notability. The arguments above are not arguments that use the WP criteria, so unfortunately they don't move this article any closer to notability. There is nothing in WP criteria that I know of for which the population of the surrounding towns would be relevant. This is one of those times when I want to ask: why do you want a WP article for this subject? What purpose does it serve? Who is the intended audience? What makes this encyclopedic? If the main goal is to make the organization more visible, then that it not the role of WP. If the motivation is that you are proud of the work you do (and you are directly connected in some way to this organization) then that is not the role of WP. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOAA's Science on a Sphere® website states that 33 million people see Science On a Sphere® every year. The Nurture Nature Center is one of 110 Science on a Sphere locations worldwide, and has also produced a script for display on all the spheres. These numbers argue in favor of retaining the article. The Center also has sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Some significant references that were omitted initially have now been added. User: Gabjandel 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search under news reveals considerable local coverage, however, this, by itself, is not sufficient. There should be an indication of at least regional coverage or impact. There is evidence of regional (state-wide) coverage beyond local coverage: [4], [5], and [6]. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some hugely long posts here, but none of them have been doing the one thing that is necessary, attempt to establish notability by presenting some actual sources, until the post by I am One of Many immediately above. Unfortunately, these are all mere passing mentions, not the substantial coverage required by GNG. I assume that this is the best that can be found, in which case it is not enough. SpinningSpark 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Does not meet up to notability standards of WP:GNG--Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 8 December 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (Beast Quest)[edit]

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

Unreferenced and it isn't encyclopedic. 115ash^→(☏) 11:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this is an article about a real person, then this can be deleted as Unreferenced. But... This looks like an article about a fictional person, so that means that WP:BLP does not apply. Since this article is unreferenced, we can't confirm who or what this article talks about, or wether or not it is about a real person or not, or even if it is entirely made up by the page creator. DSCrowned^(talk) 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is about a fictional character in the Beast Quest novels series. As such, WP:BLP is not applicable. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. the original nomination stated "WP:BLP absolutely fails." (diff). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 29 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 both articles. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Turkel[edit]

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

Seemingly unnotable author/journalist; I found nothing in my searches to put him over the threshold for eligibility. I'd have prodded this, but it's been around a fair old while and I figured there could well be offline sources, so thought I'd get some other eyes on it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article on his book, which I can similarly find no sources for:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything on him online, but he had the misfortune of dying just before the Web came into existence, so easy-to-find online sources are not to be expected. He appears to have only written the one book; it was published by a significant religious press (Paulist), but that still puts the book in a niche category. Everything that I can find about him online is copied from this WP article. Unless someone comes up with some offline resources, this needs to be a delete. LaMona (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the book itself definitely does not meet the criteria for a notable book. That is a definite delete but putting them together on the AfD others may not notice the dual vote here. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 17 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both—I've tried google scholar, the Access newspaper archive and the academic version of LexisNexis. I'm not seeing any mentions, much less reviews. Worldcat shows 75 libraries hold Chemical Religion; that's high enough that I would expect to find a few reviews, but not nearly enough to make an argument for notability based on the holdings alone. Kudos to both Dylanfromthenorth and [[LaMona for their thoughtful nomination and comment, respectively. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:16, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banna (Title)[edit]

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

Dictionary definition only thus violating WP:NOT. If it were cited it could be added to the Rajput article, but it's not. SpinningSpark 19:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, please Move to Banna (title). PamD 00:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.– Gilliam (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one of a pair with Baisa (Title), likewise a dictionary entry. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 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 Userfy to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Sata Lota Pan Sagla Khota, per request from Schmidt. SpinningSpark 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sata Lota Pan Sagla Khota[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable new film; sourcing is horrible Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Possibly WP:SELFPROMOTION as well MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my previous posts. I am still in favor of deletion. In spite of MQS's work The article fail the "significant coverage" (brief sentences about an upcoming film in two articles that are about other things is not significant) and "secondary sources" (the main reference used is an interview with the director) of WP:GNG. However, as I stated below a move to MQS's user space is also okay. But there needs to be work meeting the two items I have mentioned before any move back into mainspace. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep This new article just meets WP:NF as a completed film from an award-winning filmmaker, due for release, and beginning to get coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 2). Under WP:HANDLE, being poorly written is not a valid deletion rationale., and what can be improved rarely needs deletion. @MarnetteD: Please take a look at the article now as far less flowery in tone and a little better sourced than that first brought to AFD. @Orangemike: I do not expect your withdrawal, but please consider WP:NFF (paragraph 2). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are appreciated MichaelQSchmidt. The article is improved but I have some reservations. Just because someone has won an award does not necessarily mean that they (or there works other than the award winning one) meet WikiP's notability standards. We don't have an article for Deodhar and you linked to the NFA(I) article but did not link to anything about award(s) won by her. Refs 2 and 3 only mention the film in the last sentence so the bulk of the article is sourced to the one interview. Also, ref 3 only discusses the friendship between the actors - it makes no mention of any audience appreciation - expected or otherwise - for the upcoming film. I'm not sure that her "personal problems" should be mentioned. I know why you put it there since it is in the interview but readers may want to know what those problems were and I don't think they are relevant to the film. You might substitute that "she had the idea for the film for years". This is just a suggestion though if you are happy about the sentence then that is fine. For me the sourcing is too thin at the moment. I do have one suggestion - it is possible that there were be much more info after the film hits theatres. So I would be fine with Move to draft or user space if you wanted to do this. I'll wait for your response before giving my final thoughts. It is late here so I might not see your response until tomorrow. MarnetteD|Talk 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for looking back in MarnetteD. If there were an article on her, details on her mother and husband's deaths could certainly be included in it as they had an affect on her career, and I mentioned it neutrally in this article only because it helps explain this film's production and her state of mind. I mentioned her above as an award winner only because it allows a reasonable presumption that as her newest work, this will receive more coverage. If deleted, I will certainly take it to a userspace for the (expected) short time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 22 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails under WP:GNG and seems to be very promotional as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In just way do you feel a neutral and sourced article is "very promotional". ALL articles withing Wikipedia "promote" their topics, and as a completed and unreleased film, it would seem that its beginning to receive coverage specifically meets the instruction at WP:NFF (paragraph 3)... even if just. Yes, what was first nominated was poor, but regular editing has made it better. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: - Maybe calling it promotional was a bit of a stretch, and I certainly wouldn't call it an entirely promotional article. However, there are does not appear to be a lot of sources related to the film, and those that I did find were either on film sites or Tumblr. Either way, this film doesn't have significant coverage, or very many secondary sources, so it isn't notable to be on wikipedia. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:07, 1 December 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakat Illam[edit]

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

Dubious notability for this Brahmin family. It has been tagged for notability for some time, so a discussion is in order. I will lean delete at the moment. Safiel (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the whole article and deletion process concerning it is a complete clusterfuck. The article should have been userfied and deleted in 2005 in accordance with consensus at AfD, and I'm quite unhappy that was not done. I could and have seriously considered re-closing the original AfD, which would be to userfy the article and delete the redirect, which would result in the article eventually disappearing with nobody being notified what has happened to it or being given a chance to rectify the numerous problems with the text.

There is no sensible reason for the article being forced through a second AfD, the PROD notice was perfectly adequate to allow interested parties to remedy the issues and challenge deletion, or allow us to delete the article with the minimum of bureaucracy, but for some unfathomable reason, Safiel decided to remove the PROD and force a full AfD discussion. Time consuming tediousness for no good reason, apart from blind adherence to some woefully outdated guidelines. Complete fucking shambles, as usual, from Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's make something perfectly clear. I am not responsible in any way for mistakes that were made concerning the first AfD. Wikipedia policy bars Proposed deletion in this case. I DID NOT MAKE THIS POLICY. If you don't like the policy, go to Village Pump and make a proposal to modify the policy. But don't ****ing go off on me for following policy. Makes no ****ing bit of difference in the end anyhow. A PROD takes a week. An AfD takes a week. Make your argument with Wikipedia, not me. Safiel (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy bars nothing. Policy is not absolute, as indicated on the policy page. It can and should be sensibly ignored in cases such as these. We also have WP:IAR for which this is a textbook example. Nick (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not absolute, but it is ridiculous to criticize someone for following it like this. I disagree that this is a valid example of IAR; the discussion was NINE years ago, and there could have been a huge amount of change in the mean time. Had you gone back and changed the close of an absolutely ancient AfD, then that would've been very WP:POINTy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 15:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of most expensive domain names. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porn.com[edit]

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

Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show notability. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for the sheer amount of money paid for it (proven in reliable sources). Any work of art, antique, automobile or sportsperson purchased for $9.5 million would merit inclusion. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly disagree. The Mona Lisa has been sold for millions of dollars several times, but we have not mentioned every single purchaser in the related articles. I am Quibilia. (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of most expensive domain names. There just doesn't seem to be much media coverage other than the sale. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of most expensive domain names and then put the same information there. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of most expensive domain names seems best here without reliably sourced in-depth coverage. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:33, 6 December 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. Would userfy upon request for continued work in userspace. czar ⨹ 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Price Index[edit]

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

Article produced by spammer pushing one company's product NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a concept not a product, WPI is a way to calculate PPP exchange rates as per the methodology on the page. I have worked with NeilN ^{talk to me} to address all of his concerns and feel that deletion of this page -which has proved very popular would limit the freedom of knowledge sharing into the private/corporate domain only. It does not make any mention to any companies other than the organisation who uses this method to produce data, as found in the sources/notes/references section of the page. EdmundIJones (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdmundIJones: The single source you provided is from the same organization that created this index. As I mentioned on your talk page, we need multiple independent sources for WP:GNG. I found brief mentions of this WPI in news reports but nothing substantial. I also found mentions of another World Price Index. [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've given up, I tried my best to share a bit of transparent knowledge which is unattributed to a specific organisation that a lot of people have found interesting on Wikipedia and all I get is hassle. If you feel that you would like to delete the page, go ahead, it's harming other peoples knowledge intake, not mine. I'll leave it with you guys to decide what is best. Although, you may like to query other indexes featured on Wikipedia such as the Big Mac Index as that is certainly a product from the Economist. I'm going to leave it in your hands from now. EdmundIJones (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdmundIJones: In case you wish to continue - the Big Mac Index is a good example. Look how many recent independent sources there are describing it in some detail: [8] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 6 additional significant and reliable sources such as the Huffington Post news coverage and CTV News and the Global Banking & Finance Review, all of which are completly independent and are very well known. Hopefully these show "notability"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jones, you have added sources, but not references. Take a look at Referencing to see how to turn the sources into references. Each positive statement of fact in the article needs to be referenced, similar to how you would reference a citation in a journal. Each reference needs a title and, if appropriate, an author and a date. Adding more un-referenced sources is not going to improve the article since the facts therein are not verifiable by others. LaMona (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so that appropriate references can be added and formatted. LaMona (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 15:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 29 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 08:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Camera Bullshit[edit]

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

Non notable independent film. Does not appear to satisfy any aspect of WP:NFILMS. PROD declined without explanation by SPA that is likely the article creator. Safiel (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a short while per a current failure of WP:NF. I gave the article some needed teaks, so when notability is finally established, it can simply be undeleted. As the film is only recently screened, it is reasonable to expect that we could have more sources in a month or two as it hits more festivals. I'd have recommended it be return to its author, but single edit author PMPdixon may not understand what to do with it, and 2-edit article contributor JosephCarrToo may be film's producer Joseph Carr, showing possible WP:COI is a concern. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently doesn't meet WP:NF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable movie which doesn't meet WP:NF. BenLinus1214 (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Basketball League[edit]

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

No evidence this semi-professional basketball league meets WP:GNG in independent, reliable sources. Author removed prod with a source to a unreliable, non-independent press release. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as league haven't started playing yet. Delete' Secret ^account 23:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG 166.172.190.189 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — 166.172.190.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Convert to Draft and allow work to continue by interested parties as coverage builds (essentially agreeing with WP:TOOSOON). Nick (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under GNG, has no independent or even secondary sources. Clearly not a notable league. 99.233.124.91 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — 99.233.124.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Non-notable semi-pro basketball league whose league member teams have not yet played a single game. Fails the notability guidelines per WP:ORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. There are also obvious WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. There is no credible claim that this person is a professional sportsperson. All Hardcore Wrestling is made up. See here, which is the About Us for the page created for this "event". Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Hughes (wrestler)[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy A7 as being a professional sportsperson is a possible claim to significance. However, is there notability? At this time there are no references of any kind, and I can't see much in the way of notability there anyway. This appears to be autobiographical. What competition he made his debut in at the age of around 9 isn't stated. I have a distinct feeling that this is connected to computer gaming somehow. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total rubbish, this is either a complete hoax or some kid writing up the fictitious history of a character he's played in some computer game or similar -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A11 - Tagged it as such as it's clearly a hoax - Google brings up nothing other than Facebook crap, - His sandbox will also need deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:54, 29 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. Since the entire rationale for deletion is that the list was unsourced, and all the current entries are now sourced, there really is no need to hold this open any longer. If this had been done after the first AfD we really could have saved all this trouble SpinningSpark 00:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of British mobsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list was cleared by another editor as being a BLP violation. I declined PROD since article had previously been kept at the first AfD. Given that this article has apparently never been sourced and that in some cases, some of these individuals are still alive, the article probably should fall, unless somebody is willing to do some rather quick legwork and provide proper sourcing. Delete. Safiel (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It had more than enough time to get "genuwine sources" and did not get them. Collect (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has exactly seven days to get them, the length of time of this AfD, which is all that I am personally willing to grant. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blanking the entire article seems excessive - are you sure that NONE of the linked articles have sources? Artw (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the list entry for Frankie Fraser on BLP grounds, for instance, seems a little over the top since his article is well sourced, he is a notorious gangster and he's dead. Artw (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be willing to unblank the deceased entries, during the continuance of this AfD, although the article still should fall in its entirety, if sources are not found in seven days. Safiel (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good idea. Artw (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that I will remove them again. This article needs to be fully BLP compliant as of right now. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make the most of the afd to add entires that are fully BLP compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should go without saying that WP:BLP applies ONLY to living persons. Obviously, unsourced entries for living persons should not be readded to the list. But deceased persons are not protected by that policy. Adding them back to the list does not constitute a WP:BLP violation, though they should be sourced and though the article still should fall at AfD if they are not sourced. But the extraordinary step of blanking is not required for deceased persons, only for living persons. Safiel (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While that sounds okay in theory we would need some verifiability that they are dead unless you are talking of obviously historical characters where the whole generation has died out, but having said that I am not opposed to restoring only dead people unsourced though heaven knows sourced would be a thousand times better. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the linked articles are not sourced then the linked articles should themselves be up for deletion - at a casual glance that does not appear to be the case. Unless you are saying we need the references within the list? Artw (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need to cite within the list itself, and for all entries but especially for the entries concerning living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the articles exist and are cited is of course no evidence whatsoever that any of these ppl are mobsters, or british for that matter. Having an article is not evidence of being a British mob ster, why would you think it might be? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only was the list a gross violation of WP:BLP policy (containing entirely unsourced allegations of serious criminality), but 'mobster' is in any case an entirely subjective term, appropriate perhaps for tabloid headlines but of no encyclopaedic merit given its self-evident vagueness. Inclusion on the list seems to have been based on nothing but WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as list was not attempting to be rigorously verifiable that each entry was a mobster, resulting in currently zero entries. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - no value at present - no assertion of notability - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I have restored the bulk of the content of the article. The content removal and subsequent AFD appear to be a good faith result of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. Artw (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring BLP violations is a serious business. Read our WP:BLP policy and do not restore contentious material about living ppl. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not seeing any BLP issues, please deal with any items in the list where you believe they exist seperately. I'd love to hear your rationale for removing the Kray twins. Artw (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not YOU can see BLP issues is beside the point. They have been pointed out to you by another editor. How is claiming a living person is a mobster without a reliable source not a BLP violation? You need to stop adding the names of living ppl and not claim the burden is on me; it isnt according to our policies and you are required to abide by them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible objection to any attempt at speedy keep or any form of speedy closure Valid notability issues exist for this list as well as referencing issues. In any event, several valid deletion votes/arguments exist. Safiel (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to unbold this comment, or switch it to a more standard "Comment". Otherwise it could give the false impression that you were !voting more than once. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To prevent any further strife, I have courtesy blanked the article, pending the end of the AfD, given the strenuous objections to the content. Safiel (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure how the repeated blanking and now this squares up with your "It has exactly seven days to get them, the length of time of this AfD, which is all that I am personally willing to grant" comment regarding references above. 22:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hopefully, we will get a prompt decision at the BLP noticeboard and an administrator will likely restore some of the content, at least as it pertains to people that are definitely deceased. But given that the article is under BLP noticeboard complaint, a temporary blanking is appropriate. I would not have chosen to blank the whole thing, but I will accede pending the outcome at the BLP noticeboard, rather than risk an edit war. Safiel (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment excluding living people here's what the list looks like [9]. Artw (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An admin CAN only restore the names of dead ppl without reliable sources, admins have no exemption from BLP policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, and reference. Honestly, the amount of time spent in this AfD and on the BLP Noticeboard discussing this could've been spent providing references for the article. All the entries are easily sourceable, I have a list of tabs open now for most of the living entries, but I can't add them because the page has been blanked. The article should be renamed to List of British Gangsters or List of British Gang Members/Leaders though. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support the addition of any reliably sourced material to the article, or even do it myself. I thoroughly oppose this ridiculous blanking (of the page, I support the removal of all unrefd material), squandering the only opportunity we have to fix the article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the referencing, rather than the removal, of unreferenced info. Edit warring ain't my bag though so I'll wait to see if someone else restores the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont oppose restoring unrefd the dead entries. BLP, though, demands the removal of all living entries which are unsourced, that is not a matter in which we editors get to have a say. I have to say waiting on a BLP noticeboard discussion doesnt seem appropriate for dead ppl and we know that no admin from there will restore the living people unref'd. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first step, though, should be to try and reference it, not to blindly remove it. Sources for these entries are many, and easy to find, and this whole rigmarole is a waste of everyone's time. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read and digested BLP you would know this is not true when it coems to controversial BLP, and mobster is as controversial as they come. Enforcing BLP is never a waste of time, it isnt about editors, it is about the ppl we write about, and it comes before the convenience of editors or of the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per BLP BlueSalix (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP grounds do you believe the article the list should be deleted on? Artw (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

list is a lot better now, ta for the work - not seeing mobsters as a correct title from reading the sites though-i am still on delete this, creating a list of unconnected people seems like something this site isnt designed to do

Govindaharihari (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding sources is remarkably easy and examples such as Britain's most infamous gangsters attend launch party show that there are plenty of living examples who are not at all shy about their status. And there are plenty of historical cases going back through Peaky Blinders, Jonathan Wild/Jack Sheppard to Robin Hood. For encyclopedic treatments of this stuff see Gangsters Encyclopedia: The World's Most Notorious Mobs, Gangs and Villains and Encyclopedia of Gangs. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all entries in the list should be referenced (via footnote) with a reliable source that identifies them as "mobsters" or "gangsters". There are now entries in the list so referenced. BLP doesn't apply to entries about people who have been dead for more than a few months, but the entry should still be referenced. By "referenced" I do not mean "over-referenced", one reference should be enough, especially where there is a link to an article that has lots of references; there doesn't need to be a specific sentence stating that "the subject is British" where a single reference is a British reliable source referring to crime in the UK.

In short, the arguments about deletion all seem to be arguments about individual entries - which should be deleted if not properly referenced - but they are not arguments about the article itself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some completely invalid deletion arguments above. Deletion is based on whether the topic has notability, not the state of a Wikipedia article at any one time. I don't see that Gangs in the United Kingdom is in any danger of being deleted as non-notable, and this list clearly has reasonable overlap with much of the material we have already deemed acceptible for inclusion. I don't think WP:BEFORE was followed well here, if it was referenced at all. AFD is not concerned with whether an individual entry might possibly be mistakenly added to a list (otherwise List of clowns would be speedied to prevent editors from adding anyone they disliked to it). The basic topic has clear notability, it's reasonable to admit that a large number of subjects are decades past having BLP considerations, and the history of British organized crime is covered extensively by multiple reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as each entry is cited individually. Notable topic. --GRuban (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rory and Sam Show[edit]

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

This appears to be two kids entertaining their friends and family and is totally not notable Bikeroo (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tagged it A7 and G12 which shows my opinion. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 29 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:SNOW). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butt fumble[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic and BLP-violation, since it serves only to disproportionately deride a living person Howunusual (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal was a complete mess. I think I have fixed it. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have 43 sources in this article, it was an infamous NFL folly and likely was a turning point in the history in the Jets perception in the league. The article speaks in generalities about the game and the play and isn't intended to be hurtful to the subject from what I read. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article doesn't violate any part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so there is no policy concern. The article doesn't "deride" the subjects either. The facts are all uncontested, the subjective analysis is all referenced to professional journalists, and no balance issues have been raised on the talk page. Melchoir (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you think Mark Sanchez, you think "butt fumble".RMc (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are games such as Immaculate Reception and Wide Right (Buffalo Bills) that are based off of singular plays. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most plays, even those like the Beckham catch, don't have inherent, lasting notability. This one does. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the only reasons I can think of to delete are listed in the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... like "I don't like it" and such...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) The play is not remotely comparable to the other football plays mentioned. Both of those were in playoff games, one was in the Superbowl, and the other led to a rule change. The only notability of this play was that it served to provide a lot of jokes about a living person. 2) Having a lot of sources isn't adequate to justify an article. The subject has to be encyclopedic, and this isn't. There are lots of sources about Renée Zellweger's alleged plastic surgery. That doesn't mean we make an article about just that. 3) This comment pretty much sums it up: "When you think Mark Sanchez, you think "butt fumble"." That would mean it belongs in the article on Mark Sanchez, and it would mean the article only serves to deride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer review, very few of the sources, and very little of the article, is actually about the subject of the article. And some of the sources pretty pathetic--an ESPN slideshow from 2 years ago is not a source. The article suffers from recentism, and is obviously just part of the authors' football rivalries....not encyclopedic. Howunusual (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even without the play though, two things make this a definite keep; first Thanksgiving game in primetime on one of the NFL's over-the-air partners, and one of the most notable games in the Jets–Patriots rivalry because of such and the margin of victory for the Pats, along with the unparalleled 21 unanswered points scored in less than a minute. Yes, it's mainly focused on one play, but the rest of the game is also described in the article. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most articles of this sort are blatant recentism, sourced only to news articles from the time period. This is an exception: the reception section demonstrates that secondary sources exist for this incident, unlike for most articles, so it qualifies for WP:N. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a great need. 68.80.26.166 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "Butt fumble" name has stuck, appearing repeatedly in the press including this recent article from The Wall Street Journal that includes this among other NFL games that have carried a moniker into posterity. It's part of the burden I have to carry as a Jets fan. At least Mark Sanchez has moved on to a better place. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive and sustained coverage in reliable sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:42, 6 December 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 19:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really Right Stuff[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, just another product that gets coverage in its own industry media. Needs wider coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - as it does fail WP:CORP and not have many references as a stub, a search for it with multiple search engines gives many results for the company. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List_of_photographic_equipment_makers#List_of_camera_accessory_makers, or alternately Tripod_head#Arca-Swiss_style. I created the stub here in 2010, but I don't see this getting to WP:CORPDEPTH. I think I'd expected that there would be more published reviews of their ballheads, and there is a fair bit in the blogs, and even lots of passing references [10], but I'm not seeing the requisite level of coverage in sources with an editorial process. Additional sources welcomed, of course. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is a double CSD candidate, per G7 (since the only contributor of anything substantial, User:Joe Decker, has voted delete), and arguably A7 since being "a San Luis Obispo, California-based manufacturer of ball head-style camera tripod heads, quick-release plates and related camera gear" does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 December 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katlynn Simone[edit]

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ENT Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR ,WP:MUSICBIO and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 TV show and 2 songs, not enough yet for WP:ENT. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 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 & move. Consensus is clear, but has more to do with cameras than the company's notability. No prejudice against speedy renomination if anyone is still unsatisfied with the notability evidence. czar ⨹ 20:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sankyo (camera company)[edit]

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

Article has a number of issues and I could not find any reliable sources or evidence of notability. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ja:日本電産サンキョー seems to be what this is trying to be about. Search also "Nidec Sankyo Corporation", the official name of the company. Possibly notable one way or another seeing the company has decades of history under its belt, but "making the film for a (notable?) movie" won't be it. WP:TNT not opposed. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move: The German, Italian, and Japanese pages all say different things, but none suggest this company (assuming it is the same company) makes cameras. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese article does say they made cameras: 「オルゴールと並ぶ民生用製品として、8ミリフィルムカメラおよび映写機を、Sankyoブランドで1957～1981年に製造販売した。オルゴールの加工技術から小型モーター、磁気ヘッド、光ピックアップ、カードリーダー等へ展開。数々のトップシェア製品を持つ。」 Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beg your pardon, so it does. Not that this makes them anything you could really describe as a "camera company". Perhaps it should just be moved to a stub for "Nidec Sankyo Corporation"? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily withdraw my "delete" Imaginatorium (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move: I have just re-written the article to be more representative of the company as something other than their previous activity as a camera manufacturer. (Cameras aren't mentioned in the list of products at their website anymore). Can the page be moved to Nidec Sankyo? If my changes have not been enough to save it this far, please let me know what else is required. I know that quotes from the company's own website are not ideal, but I believe it is reliable for basic data.AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Nidec Sankyo following the commendable cleanup and rewrite by Athomeinkobe. Now appears to be an acceptable stub article. --DAJF (talk) 14:13, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tangail Medical College[edit]

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

lacking notability, unsourced Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article brought to AfD 28 minutes after it was created. A WP:BEFORE search would have shown multiple newspaper sources available for the subject. One source indicates that while the institution has not yet commenced undergraduate courses, it will in the next two months. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting institution, however newly established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally keep colleges and it is reliably sourced as noted above. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:46, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sirajganj Medical College[edit]

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

lacking notability, unsourced Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article brought to AfD 30 minutes after it was created. A WP:BEFORE search would have shown multiple newspaper sources available for the subject. One source indicates that while the institution has not yet commenced undergraduate courses, it will in the next two months. An added complexity on this one is that the actual name of this institution is "Shaheed M Mansur Ali Medical College"; the article should be moved, but I haven't done so as a move during AfD makes the process more difficult to administer. AllyD (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting institution, however newly established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally keep colleges and it is reliably sourced as noted above. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:47, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rangamati Medical College[edit]

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

lacking notability, unsourced Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 12:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article brought to AfD 25 minutes after it was created. A WP:BEFORE search would have shown that at least one newspaper source is available for the subject. The source indicates that while the institution has not yet commenced undergraduate courses, it will in the next two months. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting institution, however newly established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally keep colleges and it is reliably sourced as noted above. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article has no substance as yet, the school is a (brand new) reliably sourced degree granting institution. Jacona (talk) 11:34, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manikganj Medical College[edit]

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

lacking notability, unsourced Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 12:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article brought to AfD 24 minutes after it was created. A WP:BEFORE search would have shown multiple newspaper sources available for the subject. One source indicates that while the institution has not yet commenced undergraduate courses, it will in the next two months. AllyD (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting institution, however newly established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally keep colleges and it is reliably sourced as noted above. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:48, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalpur Medical College[edit]

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

lacking notability, unsourced Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 12:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For this and the other couple of newly authorised medical colleges nominated here, see this Dhaka Tribune article, found using Google Search. The article says they come into operation for undergraduate courses in January. AllyD (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article brought to AfD 25 minutes after it was created. A WP:BEFORE search would have shown multiple newspaper sources available for the subject. One source indicates that while the institution has not yet commenced undergraduate courses, it will in the next two months. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting institution, however newly established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally keep colleges and it is reliably sourced as noted above. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:49, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temur Cholon[edit]

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

Could not find any references to this person that aren't derived from the WP article. Finding mongolian language sources turned out even more difficult, because the spelling of the name in english is rather untypical for 20th century names, so I'm not sure what the correct mongolian spelling would be. But even the most likely spelling variants didn't turn up anything. I've asked the mnwiki village pump for help, but there was no reply. As far as I can tell, He may or may not have existed and may or may not be notable. I'd prefer for someone to dig up some offline sources to support it, but in this entirely unsourced state there is no point in keeping it. FWIW, this article seems to have been the only contribution ever from user Nelker. --Latebird (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information on people like this person is usually not to be found on the internet, and we don't have any knowledgeable editor with interest in such subjects (anymore, that is) who is in Mongolia and could access offline sources. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too bad, I bet the information is correct. We just can't verify it. I thought I had found his name in a book title, but it turned out to be from Hephaestus Books, which just repackages WP articles. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 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 Shila Amzah. Nothing sourced = nothing to merge. czar ⨹ 19:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shila Amzah Entertainment Berhad[edit]

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

Absolutely no secondary sources. As an entertainment company, it has only 1 artiste, and the founder is her dad. I believe most contents could be merged to Shila Amzah, and the rest could become biographical articles for ND Lala and Ong Peng Chu respectively, if needed. Timmyshin (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As talked Timmyshin, I strongly agree to delete the Shila Amzah Entertainment Berhad page. Some of the information of the page will be emerged with Shila Amzah. As for now, no pages relate to ND Lala or Ong Peng Chu. Thanks Aiman851 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 29 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. No reasons based in Wikipedia policy given for deletion. If you want to change the deletion policy to include articles made by undisclosed paid editors, the venue is that way. Sam Walton (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucibel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#paid-contrib-disclosure and the reasons for original AFD, in the light of subsequent changes to and clarifications of WMF and community stances on Paid Advocacy Editing (PAE). Elvey^(t•c) 00:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets general notability from the multiple references I've found. I don't see the logic of killing off the article – the author might be censured but don't 'punish' the article if it contains useful material. Libby norman (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if the content of the article is illegal? The evidence that this is largely the product of undisclosed paid editing is pretty strong, as is the evidence that undisclosed paid promotional content violates FTC regulations. The dots my not form a solid line, but they're closely spaced. Where is the line drawn that this (arguably) hasn't passed? At what point is it appropriate to remove such content? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal is a strong word – I do appreciate your concerns, but I would still try to separate the article from its author as it's the article that is up for deletion. If we start to make judgements based on authorship of articles it adds another layer of complexity that could make us lose focus on whether the article stands. In this case, I think it has enough existing or potential references to indicate notability. Libby norman (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and VMS Mosaic are arguing with a straw man; please stop! No one here (but you, in creating your straw man) has claimed that Lucibel is not notable. Non-notability is not the only valid reason to delete an article. Illegal content is another valid reason for deleting content. If you dispute any of that, what part(s) do you dispute? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say you appreciate my concerns. Well then, show it - directly address my concerns by answering my question: What if the content of the article is unlawful? Deletion doesn't mean it can't be recreated; I don't think the article should be salted. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libby norman ? --Elvey^{(User talk:Elvey•c)} 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Norman was tucked up in bed with a cocoa as it was quite late in this neck of the woods Elvey. Sorry I missed your 1 December responses to my post of 26 November. I think I understand your point Elvey but still believe this is a Keep as you've provided no grounds for deletion that I see as falling under grounds for deletion as it currently stands. If, as it appears to me, you are suggesting an extension of the deletion policy to include articles by authors who have been paid to write the material, then this is not the forum to debate that. It would be better taken to the relevant board so the debate can be widened and a consensus can be reached. I don't understand the straw man argument you have introduced – it doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of my intentions or those of VMS Mosaic in responding to an AfD proposal by providing keep or delete opinions referencing current guidelines. Do hope that helps clarify. Libby norman (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off as impatient. I believe your reply does clarify: What you're saying, Libby norman, is that, if the content of the article is unlawful, we should not delete it anyway. (Either that, or you didn't answer my question, or I'm missing something.) --Elvey^(t•c) 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is you refuse to say what is unlawful about the article. Being created by a bad editor does not make the article unlawful. We need to know exactly why you believe the contents of the article to be unlawful? Which exact law(s) and/or Wiki policies is the contents of the article breaking? Please be specific as to the exact sections of the law(s) and why those sections apply to this article. Simply repeating over and over that something is unlawful does not make it so. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey and no worries I'm sorry I missed your earlier responses. I would word it somewhat differently and say that my reasoning is that if we have concerns about an editor they should be discussed independently from concerns about an article because in an AfD debate, as far as I am aware, the focus remains on the merits or otherwise of the article. I linked to the grounds for deletion guidelines above so don't need to repeat those here. I note that you previously raised this issue in January 2014 and the final result was a keep. Editor Uncle Milty put it very well: This AFD is apparently an attempt to force policy discussion, rather than discuss the suitability of the article for WP. It appears the same debate has been started again about the same article and, while it may have some merits, this is not the place to set a precedent as we do not have existing guidelines or evidence of consensus from across Wikipedia that would give us grounds under the vague and un-Wiki like terms unlwawful and illegal you used as justification for a deletion – all this as noted succinctly above by VMS Mosaic. I know Wiki has no rules, but a deletion made by a few random editors who happened upon a debate and based their decision on vague terminology outside current guidelines would be likely to attract quite justifiable criticism as undemocratic and unsupportive of Wikipedia's core goals and philosophies. I would be happy to contribute to a separate debate on the relevant board if you decide to move your proposal forward. Libby norman (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's enough info to close. The reasons for deletion haven't been challenged, and the two arguments for keeping it are the same straw man. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator quite clearly agrees that the article is notable. He has not shown any part of the article to be illegal/unlawful (e.g. a copyright violation). The policy he cites is an editor policy, not an article policy. The cited FTC regulations are also aimed at the editor (the article would only be evidence of what the editor did). Work has been done on the article to fix any neutral point of view issues. This probably should be a Procedural close just like the first AfD, especially given that the nominator has given no valid deletion reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed Paid Advocacy Editing (UPAE) is a fireable offense. We delete content containing copyright violations, even when we haven't received DMCA takedown notices, as we should. I welcome your attempt to prove that it's illegal to merely view or unknowingly host articles with copyright violations. It's wrong to knowingly host them, so we should avoid doing that. Likewise, it's wrong to knowingly host content in violation of the FTC regs, which have the force of law. So we should avoid doing that too. I suppose we could create a specific policy page that says that the product of UPAE, like the product of a copyright violation, should be removed. What efforts have there been to do so since the Terms of Use were changed to bar UPAE? I don't recall any. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you will point out the particular specific material which violates copyright, I will assist in removing it. Note the logo is fair use. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You, VMS Mosaic are AGAIN arguing with a straw man; for the love of chocolate, please stop! No one here (but you, in creating your SECOND straw man) has claimed that Lucibel violates copyright. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault your comments are all but incomprehensible, but let me try again. If you will specify exactly which particular parts of the article violate exactly which part of which particular FTC regulation, I will assist in removing that particular material. I have looked at every link you have given, and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the disposition of the contents of this article. At the risk of repeating myself, every single one of them specifically apply to the editor(s). Please point out exactly what sentences in the links you gave which you believe say anything about the edited article. Also, please stop with the unWP:AGF strawman BS particulary given that I'm not the one throwing up nothing but strawmen. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes the GNG. As the new Terms or Use weren't specifically grandfathered, I don't see them applying to articles created before they came into force. If we were to grandfather the policy I suspect we'd need a broader discussion. - Bilby (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth discussion - indeed, the ToU weren't specifically grandfathered. IIRC, at commons, at least, unless there's a grandfather clause or a sunrise clause, policies apply to already uploaded content and already completed edits, not just new ones. But that's only a vague recollection, and of commons. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that I worded this very badly. I guess the point I wanted to make was that we haven't made teh ToU retrospective - edits made prior to the change in the ToU dont need to comply with the new ToU, but edits made after do. This article was made before the ToU was updated, so I can't see how we can apply the new policy to an article created before it came into effect. - Bilby (talk) 10:22, 6 December 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anjli Jain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't mean criteria for notability. article was previously removed; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anjli_Jain_Chopra (Apologies if I didn't do this right!) Seinfreak37 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:26, 14 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 22:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 29 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) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cardpeek[edit]

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

The included sources seem to be of dubious reliability (wikis, forums, and blogs lacking independent editorial oversight, sites associated with the subject, and a primary source in the form of a conference report), and there is no assertion of the significance of this piece of software. The subject may in fact be worthy of an article, but there is no evidence of that at present. —Swpb^talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 08:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks reliable third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a rather strong keep. Here is a profile of the main author. He is a researcher who has worked for several official smart card authorities in Europe. The project site may be a wiki, but it is actually a managed project. You have to be a member of the project to contribute. Not the same thing as a wiki that the general public can edit. There is an academic paper that describes it as 1 of 3 available tools for reading smart cards (the authors are interested in it for research purposes). It is available for 3 Linux distributions, and for each of these the documentation of the package is a reliable 3rd-party source. This is not the kind of software that would receive coverage in general media, but it is easily verifiable as being what it says it is. I think we should make allowances for the way that open source developers collaborate. I don't see any particular reason why it should be deleted. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The project wiki may be managed, but as a primary source, it's utterly not relevant to establishing notability. As for your comment that "I don't see any particular reason why it should be deleted", you need to understand that the burden of proof in deletion discussions is to show reason for the article to be kept, and the scarcity of WP:RS coverage for this software makes that a weak case. —Swpb^talk 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I was concerned about a couple of statements in the PROD. The two academic papers are not primary sources, they are secondary because the authors are not connected to the project. About the wiki, I'm not claiming that it esablishes notability, only that as a managed project it is reliable. About the requirement to see it covered in newspapers or general media, given the level of technical sophistication in editorial departments, editorial oversight doesn't get you much in term of reliability. Mistakes are rampant. What it does show is notability, namely that people want to know about it. The lack of coverage there simply shows that the general public doesn't care.

So who does care? This page is averaging 20 views a day. Perhaps coming from the links in EMV and Tachograph. They might be security researchers, like the authors of the first paper. Or researchers or individuals interested in privacy, like authors of the second paper. My first question was whether this software was legal. But apparently it is, so it looks like a legitimate tool for people to find out what information is being collected about them. That's the audience we would be cutting off if we deleted the article, so I'm concerned about that. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of references, but none of them are the WP:RS we need to establish notability. Blogs, package repos, etc don't add up just because there's lots of them. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I have to say that I agree that there are several mentions but very few of them lead up to building what we expect as proper nobility for an article.--Canyouhearmenow 12:49, 8 December 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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stewart-Jones[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable; just a case of TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:57, 22 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 03:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the strongest keep I've ever done, but there's just enough here for him to pass notability guidelines. If it were just the role for Gotham I'd argue for a redirect to the cast page, but I found that Stewart-Jones has had at least one film role that has resulted in him gaining some substantial coverage in reviews (The Good Guy) and has been in a few plays where he's been repeatedly highlighted in multiple reviews and articles. I do want to note that I did find mention of him in some of the articles about Mr. Popper's Penguins, but I didn't look too closely at those since he wasn't a named character. In any case, there's just enough asserted notability here to where I think he squeaks by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Stewart-Jones has a long list of TV guest credits, including some recurring parts, before Gotham. His role on that show is major and based on an established character from the comics. He's also been in a few widely-distributed films. The short version is that he's a notable actor and deleting his article would leave a gap.Bjones (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found lots of sources easily, such as this, that, and yon, so he passes WP:GNG. That's not even including the (possibly biased) Fox radio and New York Post, which are owned by the same News Corp that owns the station that runs Gotham. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 2 December 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. Article talk page can always be restored upon request, if needed. czar ⨹ 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMH Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete, we cleared a sock farm and a proper discussion can be held now. This was previously AFD'd. I think a redirect or delete is more appropriate as the only really notable achievement thus far is getting their name in papers by offering new contracts to people who turned them down. I am ok with the article if the community ends up deciding it is a notable subject but to me right now the subject fails Indepth coverage IMHO. User:78.26 did a fine job cleaning up the mess so their input would be greatly valued. For reference see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pearljambandaid Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm still ruminating on this, leaning keep. We established that it met GNG last time, so the question is: Do we delete articles about notable subjects developed by socks/SPAs? Normally I'd say clearly no, but in this case the article was another prong in their "lets get noticed" campaign. Then again, they did get noticed by reliable sources. By the way, if we keep the article, I'd add back that billboard mention, because it identifies the executives of the label, which is core subject information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*comment I'm staying anonymous because I don't want to be involved in the tarnishing of SMH Records. In all fairness, it seems as if there is a witch hunt for this label. The comment made by the user who said "the only really notable achievement thus far is getting their name in papers by offering new contracts to people who turned them down" isn't true by any means.

You gutted out the two MTV News stories, the Billboard stories, the XXL Magazine article, etc, etc. I've watched a war be waged by users here and it isn't right and lacks ethics. SMH Records is in the news right now for their albums with Crooked I, Slaughterhouse, DJ Whoo Kid, Sway Calloway and much more. There also is no information regarding the television show they are conducting that is gaining mass attention, specifically in the Hip-Hop world. The user has removed all this information. The main problem is one user here has went after this page from the beginning and still continues on with it. It seems to be a personal motive by the user to get rid of this page or at least to discredit it. I think the article should be kept. — User:JacoreyBarkley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC). User is a sock of Pearljambandaid Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

keep as it established notability. Lots of 411 on Google that is not here.

Weak keep. The article from The Source cited in the article, plus this one, and this one, plus this Billboard article give us the potential for at least borderline adequate sourcing. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:5P - Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. The return of the incessant attempt to abuse Wikipedia to promote Jonathan Hay (publicist) and associated subjects (Jonathan Hay Publicity, Hoopla Worldwide, Sabrina (pop singer), Audio Stepchild, Birdgang clothing, A Different Kind Of Christmas, Michael Barber (musician)) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 62#Jonathan Hay (publicist). Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. Help stop the rot, delete spam to help preserve the integrity of Wikipedia.
Company lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources mentioned by Michig above; The Billboard article has no depth of coverage about SMH. The other 3, Brandon Robinson from The Source has been promoting SMH but that's one person, not multiple. And guess who wrote the article on Robinson, the same sockfarm that is responsible for the SMH one. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Duffbeerforme and various investigations regarding the original author and peripheries. No prejudice against re-creation (by editor without a COI). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like the other accounts created by these sock puppets, article will never be remade except by them if given the chance. The only difference is now these sock puppets are tricking media outlets like billboard. If you read the article and then do research, the person hired for the position also hasn't worked at Universal in over 5 years. Not to hard to hire that person. HiLikePlanes (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — HiLikePlanes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Looks like this will be deleted. Can we copy the talk page of this article to the talk page of this deletion discussion? Should the article be recreated for purposes legitimate or otherwise, I think it would be useful in either case. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 5 December 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. This was a close call between NC and calling it an outright Keep consensus. Since they both end up with the same result, I generally don't fret too much about that distinction. This basically comes down to people's opinions about the quality of the sources presented, and I don't see either side presenting argument which clearly outweigh what the other side is saying, so I'm going with NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Moore (journalist)[edit]

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

Nonnotable. Nomination for an emmy is not notability, and the other award is only minor. Almost all references are to her facebook page DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:17, 21 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 04:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the editor that accepted this at AfC. I think it meets the GNG because of this and this. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while the Distinguished Women/Men article (first link from Cerebellum) is a good reference, the Vrated (2nd link) is simply an interview with very little in the way of facts. If all that can be said about her is that she's a newscaster and won some small awards, then I do not see how she is notable. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Primefac. The awards are minor. Coverage consists of a news item about her marriage to a fellow newscaster, and a piece in Vegas magazine written by her about herself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think that the multiple sources just push her over the line. They're substantial, independent, and in what appear to be reliable sources. It's not much, but probably enough to write a brief, sourced entry with. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
~~Tentative~~ Keep apart from the "distinguished people" source, it seems like the Las Vegas Review Journal is a priori reliable; which, is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. It is possible that I am missing something here, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to definite keep per Thaddeus below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presumably Vegas Magazine asked her to do a piece on her own likes / dislikes as a person that their readers would be interested in, she didn't break into their offices add the article to their latest edition and then sneak out again. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your implication is that the Vegas Magazine article isn't a primary source, but interviews count as primary sources, hence my earlier statement. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - while the interview is certainly a primary source, it is still a type of evidence of notability as non-notable people are not often featured in an interview. The Distinguished People source is good. Those two combined with the other minor coverage suggests to be the subject is notable, albeit just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep per additional RS coverage I found: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, Primefac, and MelanieN, any thoughts on the new sources? czar ⨹ 02:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- first, about the old sources: Interviews such as that in Vegas magazine are poor sources for two reasons: first, with respect to verifiability, they usually say only what the person wants to say, They are not even reliable for what the person's likes/dislikes, just what they or their press agents want us to thing about them ' Whenever they are verifiable even for the basic facts of life depends upon the profession & the topic: people are notably imaginative about their early life. and anyone in a profession that depends on a youthful appearance is unreliable on dates. Second, they are normally arranged by press agents. Such magazines cover what is supplied to it. It's a measure of the skill of the press agent more than the notability of the subject.
- As for the new ones, (1) is a trade magazine about news reporters, & the caption above the headline indicates it's the other person who's much better known. (2) is the same story, and indicates the same relative importance, (3) (4) and (5) are a tribute to the persistence of her press agent. I'd need to see something substantial outside Las Vegas. The only ones here are her mere inclusion in a list of regional awards. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with DGG. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - While coverage from outside Las Vegas (hardly a small town, "local source" that covers everythign imaginable, BTW) may be desirable, there is currently no clause in WP:BIO or WP:N that says it is required. I stand by my assessment that reliable source coverage confers notability. Whether the coverage is the result of the "skill of the press agent" (which is an assumption, not a fact) is irrelevent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 5 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Democratic Alliance[edit]

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

Not a notable organisation, against Wikipedia rules. No credible results, nothing of third party coverage indicates credibility. Some of their results prove that they have no support, and that proves they won't be missed if their article was deleted (which it should be, as it does not satisfy Wikipedia policy) doktorb _words^deeds 09:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the article includes appropriate references in support of this. Thincat (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your Edit Summary, I will continue to nominate for deletion all those articles I think require removal from Wikipedia. This includes all these currenly in AfD, and any others I think deserve it. doktorb _words^deeds 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, I understand that you are trying to remove undue articles from wikipedia and wikipedia appreciates your help. While nominating AfD, u really need to consider the notability of the subject before nomination. However, your rationale for deletion; Not a notable organisation, against Wikipedia rules. No credible results, nothing of third party coverage indicates credibility. Some of their results prove that they have no support, and that proves they won't be missed if their article was deleted (which it should be, as it does not satisfy Wikipedia policy) is not a good one to me. The article or its subject is never against wikipedia policy (It does not contain inappropriate content). It obviously meet WP:GNG. You claimed that nothing of third party coverage indicates its credibility. I want to let you know that it is never about credibility but notability. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. Please don't misunderstand WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 7 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice[edit]

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

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. "Achieving" only a handful of votes is the very opposite of notable. With no important or credibility, this political party has no place on Wiki, and without any credible impact in local or national politics, there is little point in wasting space by retaining this article doktorb _words^deeds 09:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close The nomination puts forward no policy or guideline-based reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does. doktorb _words^deeds 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 7 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire First[edit]

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

Barely notable organisation which fails Wikipedia policy on organisations, notability, and credible third party coverage. As a political party, they have failed, and have no indication of any notability in their campaigning, coverage, or results. Nothing to indicate that they have any notability in local politics let alone English politics. doktorb _words^deeds 09:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a bad article. It is about as political party that is new snd appears to be still active. It is referenced to reliable sources (including The Guardian). How is Wikipedia improved by deleting this article? 'Notability' should not be used as a blunt instrument to delete good articles. Use it to delete bad ones. Ground Zero | t 13:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a Wikipedia editor, so I apologise if this post doesn't appear correctly. Only came to the page as I was listening to BBC Radio 4 last night, where a Yorkshire First Parliamentary Candidate for the 2015 General Election was involved in a debate on devolution in the UK. Prompted me to Google the party, where along with this article I found recent mentions on the Guardian, BBC, Yorkshire Post, Huddersfield Examiner and other publications. I don't really understand what Wikipedia would gain from deleting this article? 90.196.81.17 (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 7 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing Party (Scotland)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability. Not notable by any regard, and against all Wikipedia policies on notability. No notable or credible third party coverage. Nothing to prove they have any credible place in Scottish politics let alone British politics. doktorb _words^deeds 09:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to me not to be against any "Wikipedia policies on notability". The BBC and Scotsman seem credible third party sources to me. They are also notable in wikispeak (BBC, The Scotsman) although that aspect is not relevant here. The material they report clearly is not any sort of press release. There is no requirement for articles to be restricted to parties with a "credible place in Scottish politics". Surprisingly, I have found a book with a substantial paragraph on the party.[16] Thincat (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Thincat, User:Green Cardamom, User:Doncram, User:Jonathan A Jones, and others. This article has been tagged for notability concerns for some time, without any editor (including yourselves) doing anything to repair this. If the article is flagged as potentially not-notable, how can you vote "Keep"? doktorb _words^deeds 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why don't you spend more time trying to improve Wikipedia by adding sources? Here's one. Here's another. There are more. That's all the notability tag means, it doesn't mean it's been determined to be non-notable. -- GreenC 18:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why don't you see that sources should do more than just confirm an organisation exists? I take you back to the core issue: has this group done anything notable? doktorb _words^deeds 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They have source coverage per GNG. That was my rationale for Keep and others too. -- GreenC 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom What have they done, specifically? doktorb _words^deeds 23:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Green Cardamom. To User:Doktorbuk, I've seen you making similar statments elsewhere, confusing your usage of word "notability" with Wikipedia:Notability which is different. I think you'd be clearer if you would use the word "importance" instead. See wp:IMPORTANT, a former criterion for articles. In Wikipedia jargon terms, you believe that "importance" of a topic should be asserted and perhaps proven, while the wp:GNG standard is lower, is essentially about verifiabilty. And also, showing sources exist in the AFD as done by Green Cardamom above is enough to settle the AFD question but not to remove the notability tag in the article. For the AFD, there's no requirement that the sources be added to the article, it just must be shown that sources probably exist, or do exist, which has been done. Couch your arguments at AFD using Wikipedia jargon words that are relevant to Wikipedia AFDs, i suggest to you. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To summarize, Doktorbuk, your AFD arguments essentially amount to an argument that the article itself doesn't show adequate sources, which was conveyed already by a tag on the article. You don't need an AFD to tag an article; it already was tagged. Articles can stay tagged for a long time, until someone feels motivated to improve them. The AFD process is not the right way to motivate others to improve an article; there is a saying wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --do ncr am 23:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now tidied up the artcle and added another six references, all of which were easy to find. Given the extensive discussion of the party in a range of reliable sources the article clearly meets WP:GNG: there are eight reliable secondary sources (BBC News Online, The Times, The Scotsman, The Herald (Glasgow), and a book), seven of which "addresses the topic directly and in detail", with the last one being used to source a single fact (an election result). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 7 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ree Mthology[edit]

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

PRODed by User:MelanieN, template removed by IP. Original rationale was: "The article is basically incoherent. Maybe it's a language problem, but the article literally makes no sense, so it's impossible to determine if the subject is notable or how it relates to any other subject. BTW the title is misspelled, but that is the least of this article's problems."

I'm endorsing the above concerns. The topic of the article can discerned to be about folk traditions of some sea gypsy groups in Thailand, but the article's incoherence is such that it's nearly impossible to understand what it's supposed to say, let alone improve. Paul_012 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my PROD. No salvageable content. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I suspect that this is about one mythical story, possibly location related. If so, the article ought to recount the story (briefly). If the author will exp[and the article to deal with this issue, I may possibly be willing to change my vote, but for the moment, it is completely incoherent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glynrhondda street[edit]

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

I don't see any sign of notability here, and I don't see any policy that says all streets are automatically notable. Squinge (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Places are usually considered notable, but streets aren't (unless reliably shown to be, and this one isn't). Peridon (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as streets aren't notable at all. There are so many across the world that just one street wouldn't be significant. A street would likely have to be extremely notable to get its own article, as there are incredible amounts of them. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - there's not even an assertion as to why this street is notable. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - What does this street have of import besides being near a theatre? Should be deleted, nothing else indicates notability...Cesium 133 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 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. I'm not 100% certain it's a hoax, but speedy deleted as A7 anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Sat TV[edit]

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

Purported Internet television channel, but probably a YouTube channel with no indications of notability. Editors of this article keep removing the WP:CSD tags, so taking it to WP:AfD. Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry to stop this WP:ADVERT for a service which pretty much exists to copyright infringe Filipino networks (of which those networks monotize a lot), but that's exactly what it is; it seems like this AfD also flagged someone's attention as the 'network' has been deleted from YouTube and Facebook. Nate • (chatter) 09:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - a hoax "television network". Another kid that fantasizes to own a TV network by creating a Wiki page of his Youtube channel. -WayKurat (talk) 10:39, 29 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oikyo Linux[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't make assertsions of notability (we don't have a CSD/A7 for software though). Nothing except self-promotional claims/fluff, which seem common to all linux distros. My PROD for these concerns was removed by the page creator (which is fine). But then my other edits to it, which removed piles of material that seemed like user instructions, fluff, and/or generic content about the underlying Ubuntu from which is is derived were undone without explanation...this all points to an article headed towards promotion or various WP:NOT problems. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, some of the content I removed (and removed again, with warning to editor) appears to be copyvio. DMacks (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a failrly new distro that has been out for less than a year and doesn't seem to be particularly widely used. Crucially, it doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. To go from creation through prod, deprod and then AfD all within 24 minutes may be some sort of record. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the website is sleek, the distro itself hasn't established notability (it's been on the waiting list of DistroWatch since January 2014). The user has created a previous page (Oikyo linux) two days prior which has been WP:G12'd (and G11), however the current page doesn't seem to be resemblant to the "About us" page (as per the G12 for "Oikyo linux"). Further, the only reference listed is for the etymology of Oikyo, from the Online Etymology Dictionary. There's a sense of promotional stuff as well. — Abderrahman (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 2 December 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. Clear consensus herein for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Winter – Winter in June[edit]

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

Non-notable novel. References to support notability aren't forthcoming. Mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Barely any Google or Google news hits, certainly no reliable sources to be readily found. Also the article contains undue biographical information about the author. I believe it fails WP:NBOOK. BethNaught (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. No reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 02:33, 24 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've created a page for the author, who passes basic notability guidelines for all of her books as a whole, but I can't see where this specific book merits its own article at this point in time. I'd normally suggest a redirect, but this isn't how we typically name redirects and it doesn't seem to be a likely search term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per the others. No evidence of significant RS coverage that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NBOOK, No evidence of notability . –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:04, 29 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. The obvious thing to do at this point is to withdraw the nomination. I may do some editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Yellow Horse Brave Heart[edit]

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

promotional article for minor academic. Many adjectives of praise, but the major actual accomplishment is getting a grant. Formerly, but not presently, an associate professor at Columbia. "Research associate professor" is n�ot normally a tenure-�track title. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The criteria for having the article deleted, as per WP:FAILN, have not been satisfied. According to WP:NACADEMICS, since the subject of the article meets the criterion of 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, the page warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. And, as opposed to simply deleting the article, the expert-subject tag (simple include {{}}) can be added to the article in order to improve its quality. Silver Buizel (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This recent article in The New Republic verifies that she was an innovator in developing the sociological concept of Historical trauma, a useful tool in understanding the problems faced by Native Americans such as the Sioux, as well as African Americans, Cambodians and the descendants of Holocaust survivors. Accordingly, she meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. It seems WP:GNG is met, and it appears WP:AUTHOR is met as well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am WP:INVOLVED so I should not say anything other that what I have already done: it was me (a) who declined the speedy (b) added the The New Republic reference (c) added the {{Template:Third-party}} tag. (And yes, I know it should be "it was I" instead of "it was me", but it's perfectly understandable, and therefore grammatically correct in my somewhat oddball view of what "grammatically correct" means.) Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 December 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Larsen[edit]

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

This article does not have reliable sources. Facebook page and singer's website is in external link and references. Delete this because it is only promotional. Google search also has only promotional websites. Some album are in wikilink but not have any reference themself they will also need to be deleted. Notability is not inherrited from album or song to person so it will not matter. Delete it. -TheSawTooth (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO per these sources: [17] [18] [19] [20] (Note: the last one is in German.) Everymorning talk to me 03:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is Biography of living person violation. Too less references so many claims and promotion. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Everymorning. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's lots of coverage out there, including a bio and three reviews at Allmusic and lots on GNews. She has also had multiple hit records in several countries. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flies through the notability guidelines for musicians courtesy of multiple no.1 singles and chart-topping albums, and multiple awards, and multiple platinum/gold records. This nomination is, at best, misguided. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, erase the stuff which violate guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It's clear to me now that she is notable. (non-admin closure) JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zabryna Guevara[edit]

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

Not a notable actress. Article is only 2 sentences long JDDJS (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, being a stub article is not a reason for deletion. She has been acting on TV for over a decade in numerous notable series and is one of the main characters in Gotham which has been successful enough to have been expanded from 16 episodes to 22. Has also appeared in feature films including this years X-Men film. These meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets WP:BIO. Being a stub is not a criteria for deletion, specially when just a little WP:BEFORE would have shown the person's career as meeting WP:ENT. Also, a look beyond the originally AFD'd stub, shows the actress has received some coverage for her work in theater. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:08, 29 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 (G7) by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inward Expressionism[edit]

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

Non-notable art trend created by a non-notable artist. PROD removed by creator after redirect to artist's articlr was reversed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches, including Highbeam which includes significant art publications, turn up nothing to indicate that this is a noted art term/movement. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entirely non-notable, borderline WP:MADEUP. Like with its creator, I can't find any independent sources at all discussing the subject. Kolbasz (talk) 13:26, 29 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) 06:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Bary[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No real claims of notability, and I'm unable to find a single independent source, reliable or otherwise. Kolbasz (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article meets #2 on Wikipedia:ARTIST, the notability guideline for artists/painters, and the article says that Bary created the trend of Inward Expressionism, making the article meet #2 on Wikipedia:ARTIST. Delete - Roscelese's opinions on this AFD swayed my opinions. Also, I didn't look into what inward expressionism was when making my !vote, and Roscelese had a point about it. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one does "Inward Expressionism" except Bary; it's his name for his own art style. By that logic, I am the notable founder of Roscelesism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: True; your !vote swayed my opinion - I changed my !vote. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person - fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST - created by an account whose sole purpose is to promote this guy. By the way, this AfD was malformed, so I accidentally created another one, which I will go and delete now + make the AfD tag at the article direct here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up no evidence to indicate that the subject meets any of the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single shred of independent evidence that this artist has ever had a major public exhibition, that his works are displayed in any museums, or have been the subject of discussion by notable art critics, or that anyone has taken any public notice of his work anywhere. As for the "art movement" he supposedly created, it seems that he has no known followers. For all I know, he may well be very talented, but he is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 December 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 Manatee High School#Athletics. Clear consensus against deletion. Discussion of whether to stub the article or to spin it out summary style can continue at the high school's talk page. czar ⨹ 04:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins Stadium[edit]

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

There is nothing in this article that couldn't be included in the article about the high school. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 21:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Manatee High School, the appropriate place to cover this stadium. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a one-time host site for the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl, I consider notability to have been achieved. Worthy of at least a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manatee High School per Cullen. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: non-admin action, hoping further discussion will lead to a clearer consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Manatee High School, per Cullen328. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:05, 29 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) 06:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

森とフィヨルドの詩[edit]

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

This article is missing evidence that the album is notable. Some of the songs may be notable, but this does not automatically make the album notable. It seems that the album just collects random songs from elsewhere. When I search for the article title on Google, the first few result pages mainly consist of webshops, either telling that the product is sold out or that used copies are available. The fact that an album is (or isn't) available in shops does not imply that the album is notable. Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Japanese title does not belong as an English article title... If noteworthy, this should be added to the article on the singer (which needs some work). Imaginatorium (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium: Agreed, I think that title would be suited for the Japanese Wikipedia. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Japanese title could mean "the poem/song of forests and fjords", one reading being "mori to fjord no uta". I could not read into the many Norwegian results coming from adding these keywords, but it might be a good lead for others. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A user has moved the page to Vestland, Vestland, which is the title of one of the songs (ベステランド・ベステランド). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just no reliable sources to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.reactos.org/node/834

[2] ttp://sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop/

[3] ttp://kutub.info/library/book/11490

[1]

[2]

[3]