Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 October	12 October >

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. Secret ^account 16:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brey (rapper)[edit]

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

Unotable rapper (Apparently was speedied already) Wgolf (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable WP:MUSICBIO--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Completely agree with Loriendrew.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not even meets basic guidelines. This sounds more like a press release. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Mattox[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. Do not believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's rationale. I researched the person but could not find anything establishing notability. If someone can find coverage, I will revise my stance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Sadly, the article is heavily dependent on WP:INHERITED and, while the person has been making positive contributions to music for decades, this has not translated into the recognition or coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. He can be sourced within the article on The Young Dubliners as a member,[1][2] but there is not enough in any independent reliable source to support a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails to meet WP:BIO, he could possible be notable but there are hardly any reliable sources where he is mentioned.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only self-created sources exist. Bfpage |leave a message 01:56, 18 October 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 Avro Vulcan XH558. Randykitty (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan To The Sky Trust[edit]

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

The trust is not as noteworthy as the aircraft it has restored - Avro Vulcan XH558. This entire article is summed up in a line from the XH558 page: "It is operated by the Vulcan to the Sky Trust as a display aircraft, funded entirely by charitable donations and the UK Heritage Lottery Fund." All the information regarding the operation of this trust is already on the XH558 page and their is no need to keep this one. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Avro Vulcan XH558. Artw (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Avro Vulcan XH558. EricSerge (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Avro Vulcan XH558, subject is about a specific non-notable (yet) surviving aircraft of the subject of the article Avro Vulcan XH558. Therefore, until the specific aircraft receives significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG, summarize verified content, and merge into parent article. No prejudice against recreating article about the specific aircraft if it can meet GNG in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support redirecting but I can find no useful content in the nominated article worth merging. All noteworthy details are already written in the XH558 article. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 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 ITF Women's Circuit events. The consensus now seems clear for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izida Cup[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fact is, the article is about a tennis competition which fails the article guidelines of the tennis project. It states: "from 2008 onwards the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments are considered notable. From 1978–2007 the threshold for notability in the women's ITF circuit is a $25,000 event." The "Izida Cup" is not applicable, as it only became a $25,000 event after 2007 (in fact, the tournament only started in 2009 as a $10,000 competition). As a note, any player winning a 25K event on the ITF Women's Circuit would also not be notable. Jared Preston (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to ITF Women's Circuit#List of events. [changed from Keep or Redirect]. I removed the PROD; i am not connected to the article and don't recall how I came to notice the PROD. But I don't like the brightline rule asserted to by a WikiProject's guideline (which is merely an Essay, not a Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia guideline) in the deletion nom, that X dollars is okay for a 2007 event but not for a 2008 or 2009 event. That rule is okay for guiding a Wikiproject's article creation process, but WikiProject guidelines don't control notability; wp:GNG policy does. Here, NO ASSERTION of wp:BEFORE has been made, i.e. no search has been done for GNG sources? And, why not respond to this request for discussion at the article talk page? Okay, well, this AFD is open now, that is the response i guess. But, at a minimum even if GNG not met by sources when searched for, redirecting to some List of ITF Women's Circuit events would be better than eliminating this article. The redirect would preserve the edit history and allow for recreation of article if/when GNG is clearly met. We have obligation to editors to preserve credit for work done. Unnecessary deletions destroy credit, drive away editors, undermine success of the project. :( Keep or redirect: good; deletion bad. Especially when no research done. --do ncr am 01:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I created List of ITF Women's Circuit events, List of ATP Challenger Tour events, and List of ITF Men's Circuit events, and updated the Tennis wikiproject's notability guideline essay to link to those. Lists provide useful complement to corresponding categories and navigation templates, per wp:CLT. --do ncr am 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that del nominator's comment: "As a note, any player winning a 25K event on the ITF Women's Circuit would also not be notable" is not true. They may not be assumed by the wikiproject to be automatically notable, but I am sure that most top women tennis players are winners of ITF Women's Circuit tour events, and are quite notable! Likewise, the wikiproject guideline essay establishes that the wikiproject deems some but not all events to be automatically notable, but cannot be taken to mean that others cannot be notable. --do ncr am 12:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have been understood. Of course the likes of Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams et al are notable even if they didn't win such a tournament. In fact, they have won higher-ranked tournaments! Obviously I am talking about automatic notability, and since there is barely any prose in the article of the tournament in question (as admittedly there isn't about many tennis tournaments, but there you go...), there isn't much savable about it. Even if the article was deleted, it could be restored if the event was to be notable in the future. Anyway, there is nothing generally notable about the Izida Cup. It is one of the second lowest-ranked tournaments on the women's professional circuit. Our (WikiProject Tennis) guidelines are by no means policy, but as far as it comes to inner-project guidelines on the creation of articles, they are very clear. Nothing here retrospective, even when the article was created in 2011 – the event wasn't notable. Many of the creator's articles on tournaments were deleted for this reason, but that too is beside the point. Redirect it if you like, I'm also not really bothered, but as our colleague Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) quite rightly once pointed out, if some new user were to see this article, he/she may think that other $25,000 ITF tournaments are notable too, and create a shed-load of similar ones, but they are not. My final say on the matter, in case that was a question aimed in my direction, why I didn't source the article to try to keep it, is why should I? It's not notable whatever source I find to cite a claim in the article. It's just a line of information about what's in the infobox with a list of former winners, who, of course, aren't all even notable themselves. So, if someone wants it (the article) kept, then they should show it really does meet the trump-all WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i think this is ready to be closed as Redirect. I think no one wants to develop the Izida Cup article, and I accept Jared Preston's view it's probably one of the least important events. I think Izida Cup can be represented just by its entry (with a reference) in ITF Women's Circuit#List of events, and Izida Cup can be redirected to there. Meeting GNG is not required to be a list-item. Any other mini-stubs on ITF Women's Circuit events could be merged and redirected the same way, without being PRODed or AFDed, saving the original edit history in case someone chooses to develop more with GNG-type sources. --do ncr am 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would disagree with a redirect. I could be wrong but I think most (if not all) these tiny non-notable tournaments get deleted, not redirected. Maybe someone can check on that. They also get fully listed at places like 2013 ITF Women's Circuit (January–March) and don't really need separate lists. The created List of ITF Men's Circuit events is simply a redirect. And there are reasons why limitations were put on the ladies $25,000 tournaments that are too detailed to get into here. You are correct about GNG always superseding any guideline/essay. The trouble is that using GNG would probably also disallow almost all ladies ITF events...even if they're $100,000 tournaments. We have gone over and above to lower the standards of inclusion to $35,000 and above, so that 99.9% of the time there is simply no question of it being notable. Exceptions always happen... that's the wikipedia way and why we have GNG policy to take care of those exceptions. This tournament is not one of the extremely rare exceptions. Unless the ITF changes this tournament's status it will never become notable. And the $35,000/$50,000 limit will probably be increased in the futures since it coincides directly with the value of the men's events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, about the women's ITF events it doesn't seem right to have multiple articles for some date-tournament-specific tournaments, say 2013 Blossom Cup, e.g. 2013 Blossom Cup – Singles and 2013 Blossom Cup – Doubles, and to have all of the events listed in list-type articles like 2001 ITF Women's Circuit, 2002 ITF Women's Circuit, etc. Why not keep those year-specific list articles but why not also have tournament-specific list articles? It is the same material organized differently. If the year info is notable, then the same info can be organized by tournament. And, the tournament articles can naturally collect appropriate references. If a given tournament is truly not notable, or just occurred one or two years, then it can be redirected to a list of the tournaments. The list of tournaments has links to separate tournament articles and the short info for a given non-notable tournament can be included there.

Likewise, for men's ITF events, it seems crazy that all the tournaments like "Great Britain F1 Futures" and "Israel F1 Futures" are itemized within date-specific list-articles 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), but there is no place one can see which years the "Israel F2 Futures" event occurred. It seems natural to list the men's tournaments and briefly give that info, e.g. *Israel F1 Futures" - 2010 with reference to Israel F1 Futures 2010 event at ITF tournament info, -2011 info etc. You're correct to note that i hadn't yet built out the list of men's ITF events, but now it is started at List of ITF Men's Circuit events (which is a section within ITF Men's Circuit.

This approach to listing the tournaments actually serves better than the scattershot approach of having some tournament articles and not others. Now there can be a place to cover each tournament, either in a separate article or as an item in a list.

Frankly the slavish treatment within Wikipedia of excessive detail in all the tennis events, usually just copied / sourced from ITF official pages -- as in 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), etc. -- seems non-encyclopedic. I think it would be better to strike out all the drawsheet type info from the Wikipedia articles, as it is available online anyhow, e.g. this drawsheet info in the ITF page for one tournament. That's the real problem, not the existence of short encyclopedic articles on specific tournaments. Again, i am for redirecting this Izida Cup item to the appropriate list of tournaments section. --do ncr am 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last vote above states preference for deletion rather than redirect on basis that "but I think most (if not all) these tiny non-notable tournaments get deleted, not redirected. Maybe someone can check on that". Well, previously there was not a proper redirect target. Now there is, the List of ITF Women's Circuit events. So, redirect now makes sense. --do ncr am 23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Schlaefer[edit]

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

Has not garnered the necessary secondary sources for notability as a professional foosball player per WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, I basically just see social media links, not enough to warrant an article Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mr. Schlaefer has gained notoriety in the Foosball world, not a well-covered sport, not only playing as a profession player, as shown here [3] qualifying under Wikipedia:Notability (sports) but also has had an important impact with the design of the table top game as shown here [4]. Does the article need improvement Yes. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:GNG, No reliable sources mentions him as Foosball player. Moreover created by SPA, my final vote will be delete.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In many of these Afd discussions a reviewer claims that references exist to demonstrate notability but yet does not insert the references into the article. Yes, the article needs improvement and it could be kept if there were references inserted to establish notability. The existence of references 'somewhere' doesn't establish notability. User:Shoessss ref 2 is a dead link. Bfpage |leave a message 02:06, 18 October 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. without prejudice to retitling and/or the addition or redirects to handle transliteration issues j⚛e decker ^talk 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monther Alkabbani[edit]

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

This article is full of problems-none of the refs were reliable (they went to Twitter and a form, the "official' site went to Twitter) the birth info is odd (1970 and 1957!) and none of the books even have pages on here-too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Article obviously fails WP:GNG. All I can find with my search is facebook, twitter etc. Which can not establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This writer has an article on the Arabic Wikipedia which I have just linked, showing a bunch of refs from, what seem like, reliable Arabic media. Seems like this nomination is another case of WP:BIAS and researching notability using the wrong language? Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': article should be rewritten, preferably by someone who understands Arabic. - Takeaway (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Its not bias when there was nothing linked there and the fact that when I tried finding him there was nothing I could find. Wgolf (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quote from WP:BIAS: "Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic."
-Okay I think it needed a better term now then bias as when I saw the word bias I thought it was trying to say that I was wanting it to be deleted ha ha. Anyway-we will see what happens! Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help it that that is what it's called here on WP. But yeah, next time try looking for sources in the native language, or, as in this case, the native writing system. - Takeaway (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG. I found nothing to establish its notability. I have no Idea of how a subject that is obviously non-notable will suddenly become notable because some of its content is written in arabic. Rewritten those content in english cannot make him notable. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-That is true-there have been a few cases where the articles are linked to another language so then its "oh wow they are notable then" when in fact it is nearly the same case. (There is another person I think from Arabia that i have a AFD up for now that has a linked page to another language but is basically the same all links to unotable places) Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The writer isn't notable because they have an Arabic wikipedia page, what I wrote was that on that page there seem to be references by reliable Arabic newspapers. This makes the writer notable, also for the English language wikipedia as per WP:BIAS. It's a very basic thing really. I see WP:GNG being used as an argument. I quote from WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English." - Takeaway (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I don't think is a good idea to assume that they are automatically notable here. I search through with his name in arabic, I see nothing than facebook, twitter, is own personal work and few RS. All of which are insufficient to pass WP:GNG here. I assume, there are more stringent in the English wikipedia than any other languge wikipedia because few people participates in those project, which could retard information verification by editors. In addition the source used in that language (Arabic Wikipedia) by the author of the article might even be entirely primary sources. This is an english wikipedia, all references must be provided to support every claims. Since he already have an article in Arabic wikipedia, I think that's ok for him. Every information there can be translated for use in english by its reader and not necessarily having an article here. But let see how it goes. Wikicology (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please understand, for the 3rd time I state: look at the references on the Arabic Wikipedia article and don't try looking for stuff in a language and writing that you don't understand. In the article in the Arabic Wikipedia, one can clearly and easily see that the references used are by Al Riyadh (newspaper) here, and by Al Watan (Saudi Arabia) newspaper here. And I also found this article by Al Watan. I really have no idea how you did your search because it is strange that nothing significant showed up with you. Apparently, even while I don't read Arabic at all, I have a nose for finding stuff which apparently, you don't because I found a large amount of Google results that are not at all "only facebook and twitter". I am also of the opinion that people who are unable to read Arabic, should not be involved in getting this article deleted. We just lack the ability to form a well-balanced opinion on this writer's notability. And as for expressing your personal opinion that "Since he already have an article in Arabic wikipedia, I think that's ok for him.", it is just that: a personal opinion, and not Wikipedia policy. If the writer is notable, he is notable also for the English Wikipedia. One more ref I found is this book review by Al Jazeera. Takeaway (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a page on another language Wikipedia doesn't make a topic notable. For example, people could be discussing the deletion of the Arabic equivalent of this article right now and they might think it is notable since there is an article in English. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that here. All that was said was that the article there had sources. Look at the sources there. - Takeaway (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is notable, linked to an arabic page approved there. It just need improvement in the English Wikipedia. In Google search is shows a lot of results that are not social media. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Takeaway has found four in-depth sources in Arabic. I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a transliteration problem. Searching under the English title of one of his books, I find that Library of Congress transliterates his name as Mundhir Qabban̄i -- see the author listing for him and the VIAF listing. (although I do not read Arabic, I do know that "al" is a frequent prefix to names and that the names also need to be searched without it; I also know there's frequent variability in transcribing a arabic letter as either K or Q). I see his books have 56 WorldCat library holdings, which is significant for current Arabic fiction in the limited geographic distribution of libraries covered by worldcat . I suggest the article be moved to the LC version as a standard, on the basis of the VIAF record DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Jacona (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH.Mdtemp (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. And I don't see why this person would be primary over the golfer Taylor Smith, or Taylor Smith the passed-away 12-year-old who gone viral with her letter to 22-year-old self (which is what I found mostly). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCOLLATH. Quis separabit? 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:54, 14 October 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. As I understand the discussion, the nominator accepted that the actor is notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Ukaj[edit]

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

Actor who is basically in a bunch of unotable roles. Too soon if ever Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Takeaway (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actor seems notable in Albania and apparently also in surrounding countries such as Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia, especially as a stage actor (see http://gazetablic.com/nuk-ka-asnje-parti-politike-qe-te-mos-kete-influence-ne-teater/ , http://gazetajnk.com/?cid=1,975,742 , and http://www.zhurnal.mk/content/?id=1312131172027). - Takeaway (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article should be expanded to show his notability as a stage actor. - Takeaway (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Takeaway-Thats true-the article makes it sound like he is a film only actor which is why I put that up there, and then seeing he was just basically a extra in unotable films seemed like a complete waste of space. Wgolf (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I did make the format better for the refs (and took out the link for the film and just kept his own IMDB page up) Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment: In J.A.C.E., at least if I have understood it correctly from one article about him in Albanian, he was one of the nominees for best actor at the Tokyo Film Festival in 2011 but didn't win, so not really just an extra. In the notable film Lorna's Silence, he is also one of the main actors. - Takeaway (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Ha okay, I guess it was just not a well written article! At least I did manage to catch this! Wgolf (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem also lies in the fact that just clicking on the notability search buttons at the top of this AfD page, leads to Anglophone media. Not a very reliable way to research the notability of people who are famous outside of the Anglophone sphere. - Takeaway (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 11 October 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. A7 Secret ^account 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valkiria[edit]

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

I thought about doing a speedy but did this in the end. Not sure how notable this guy might be, hard finding anything on Google also. Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:21, 11 October 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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 19:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haroutioun Hovanes Chakmakjian[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a writer/academic, who is the father of a notable artist (composer). As notability does not cover the father, I made some search and found this in Amazon. I understand he has also written an Armenian-English dictionary but I am not sure if that much is enough to establish notability. Therefore I ask your opinions. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough with your deletion of Armenian/Greek articles: [5][6][7][8][9][10] and your continuous sock activity (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E4024). Have you ever thought about helping to improve to article and the Wikipedia project before unhesitatingly deleting these invaluable articles? As for this article, it may not be perfect, but he's undoubtedly notable. He's a noted linguist and a prominent scholar in his field. He authored what is believed the first Armenian English dictionary. Not only are there books written by him, but there are several books written about him, in different languages spanning several decades. He was a professor in one of the most prestigious universities in not only the United States, but of the world. I will expand on the books he has written shortly. I will also take up the task of expanding the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I really don't know what more to say but let me try: I already informed you that I have made several AfDs on people of various nationalities and that no-one has ever accused me of being anti-Korean, anti-American etc. It looks like you care for only Armenians and Greeks. In that case you must have noticed that only today I made a very constructive contribution to a deletion discussion about another Armenian academic. Please also note that when you accused me of the same so-called selective deletion attempts I also presented you with an AfD discussion in which I helped save an article about a Greek businessman from being deleted by finding sources. Therefore these claims of yours are baseless. Or the base is you want to keep people from proposing to delete articles on people of certain nationalities. Let's say you frightened me and I will not do it any more. How do you plan to prevent other users from proposing similar deletions? Or do you plan to use me to intimidate others, as you have already seen I do not care much about your designs. Look at the above examples you have given: The Greek singer I proposed deletion was waiting with a notability tag since more than three years! Why did you not do anyting about it in that period or get angry with whomever tagged it? One other example is about a not notable person, which was not proposed by me, I simply participated at the discussion and the result was 'delete'. (All my contribution to the discussion was one sentence.) Or is your anger due to something else? Please stop trying to frighten me; it won't work, because Wikipedia is not my life. Don't let it become yours either. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that one editor has begun developing the article. That's a very good news. Having said that, I also want to recall that these discussions need to produce a consensus to delete an article. No article will be deleted only because some jerk proposed it. Therefore there is no basis for accusing anybody for 'deleting' anything. I hope these accusations disappear soon. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who has nominated this article for deletion is under serious suspicion of sockpuppetry (see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/E4024). He is a sock of a user that is banned from all topics related to Turkey, Greece, and Armenia for disruption and POV pushing edits Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129#E4024. E4024 was also banned for the mass deletion of Armenian articles. Evidently, the user is continuing the same style of editing. Please consider this before casting your votes. Best regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sockpuppetry allegation, right or wrong, seems un-pursuable now. So maybe best to let the matter drop and forget all about E4024. Let Why should I have a User Name? edits and editing aims stand alone and be considered alone. Why should I have a User Name? has stated "I PROD or AfD anybody whose article is undersourced" - that maximalist approach to deleting things is more likely to be the reason for this AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also save articles from deletion. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to me that enough notability to justify an article arises from his Armenian community in Boston activities in the 1900s-1920s (editor of Hairenik, the dictionary, etc.). This was a very important period in the development of the Armenian diaspora in America, and Boston was its most important location. There is a huge gap in the article for his life between then and his death. But that is content issue, and even if there is no notability during the latter half of his life, notability in the first half still justifies the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is an example of cultural bias in referencing--the career is such that it would be notable and there will be sources, except that there is inadequate indexing, and almost none of us could look for material. In situation like this, as long as the information is verifiable through the sources we do have, I think the best course is to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After DGG's wise comment -as a librarian and as an old user- and keep vote I think any admin or experienced user may close this discussion. I opened this AfD discussion after making the necessary WP:BEFORE. Naturally I can reach to some sources (that I stated above) and not reach others. Anyhow, I could have withdrawn this nomination when some other sources were provided by one user, but as they wanted to use this forum also for another discussion, which involves me as a user, I desisted withdrawing for a week. I think if there are any other user who is interested in discussing another issue, can join the initiator in the relevant forum, and we continue to leave this space for discussion of articles that could be deleted on consensus. Thanks to all for their participation. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonglom mine[edit]

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

No indication from the source provided that this is actually a mine, the Exploration in Laos reference describes it as a mineral deposit. My search for it being described as an actual mine came up empty. kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Volcanoguy 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdwara Baba Batha Sahib Ji - Jodhe[edit]

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

Unremarkable place, doesn't turn up any significant results with a Google search. Contested PROD, no reason given. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content in the article. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked up its name in Google in Punjabi ("ਗੁਰਦੁਆਰਾ ਬਾਬਾ ਬੱਠਾ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ") and got 9 hits: 7 facebook hits, the en.wikipedia article, and a passing mention on this website with news on a Sikh religious festival. - Takeaway (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG and no significant coverage and article itself doesn't indicate notability of the place. Looks like a run-of-the-mill gurdwara of which there's probably thousands all across India. Cowlibob (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above not notable .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: subject do not meet WP:GNG in anyway. Facebook is the dominant source I can find so far. Wikicology (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Subject may be notable but as per Wikipedia it fails the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aminur Rahaman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both appears to have been selected to the national squad for upcoming friendlies this month against Sri Lanka. Perhaps it's best just to put a pin in these until those friendlies are finished. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The assertion that they should be kept because they might play in a couple of weeks for the national team is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, aside from the fact that this assertion is based on unreferenced content from the articles themselves. If they do play in any international matches, these stubs can easily be recreated. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggesting that there is WP:NORUSH and we show some WP:COMMONSENSE and simply sit on this for a fortnight or so isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. WP:CRYSTAL is in the reference to article contents, not deletion procedures. There's nothing in either article that suggests either player will be making an international appearance, therefore WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Simply saying there should be WP:NORUSH can't ever in itself violate WP:CRYSTAL. There is WP:NOHARM in slowing down the deletion process by a week or so. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't received significant coverage nor played in a fully pro league/international match. Therefore, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - players in Bangladesh Premier League, a fully professional league sine 2009. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:22, 18 October 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basilio Agudo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that everyone who has so far participated here, also participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilio Sancho Agudo last month for the same player, I'm surprised that isn't mentioned here. Generally I've been opposed to deleting this Indian Super League players at the start of the season - however this IS the 3rd string keeper - so I'm going to not opine on the subject. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 12 October 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:BLP1E is policy, which this clearly meets. Secret ^account 17:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Schofield[edit]

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

BLP1E: bio of a minor child (and younger sibling) notable for one event, and inevitably containing embarrassing details. Can be covered with a referenced mention in one or more relevant articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in two minds about deleting this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I thought about AfD initially when article was created, but the subject seems to be medically significant, and has received appropriate validation through reliable sources. Undoubtedly she will continue to be studied and/or receive coverage throughout her lifetime. It is unfortunate she is a minor and if kept would suggest that the article be pending change protected (WP:PCPP)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in RS and potential for eventual expansion make this worth keeping (and protecting). And since mental health no longer has the same stigma, I don't see how any of this could be said to be "embarrassing", especially with such coverage.--Auric talk 18:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are reliable sources (I was interrupted while adding some when this was nominated for deletion) This "one event" is surely a misreading of the article and lack of research into her story. She has been diagnosed with a life-long devastating severe mental illness. There has been and will continue to be news in reliable sources about her, her family life, her prognosis and about the controversy of how her parents have decided to care for her. Her parents have decided to expose January to the world on television, talk shows and in newsprint, so it is way too late for us to worry about embassasing details. Fylbecatulous talk 21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E as well as decency. That her parents have put her on a TV show doesn't mean we need to put her in an encyclopedia. So now she's fodder for all those media, but at best this leads to NOTNEWS; I see no indication that this person is doing something, or that something has been done to her, that has lasting encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Numerous reliable secondary sources. Personal opinions don't matter. Zambelo; talk 11:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides BLP1E, there's the mention of her brother with his diagnosis, which seems like a serious BLP violation to me, and I don't think anybody can argue that her brother is notable. In any case, this looks like a textbook example of 1E. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per rationale by Drmies, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Drmies. --John (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and rationale by Drmies. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Drmies, basic common decency, and because being "considered one of the youngest children to be treated for schizophrenia" isn't notable (though the copy-pasting of this exact phrase from the source may possibly be a copyright violation). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 19 October 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honey G[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no reliable source supports content. K³₄c l⁴m v₁³c t₀t 16:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find only one real source online about this band. This deletion is subject to their later becoming notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found these:

허니지 | Daum 뮤직 :: 언제 어디서나 Music on Daum
Honey G signs with Busker Busker's agency
Honey G Stuns with “My Love” and “You Fool”
'슈스케4' 허니지, 7일 정오 '고교처세왕' OST '설렘' 발매
슈퍼스타K(Mnet) - 허니지, ‘슈퍼스타K6 올스타 콘서트’ 출연 - HD Photo News - TopStarNews.Net

I found them using Google (Honey G group) and Daum (허니지) ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I add source. Kanghuitari (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources/references have been added. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 15:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World MAX 2002 Preliminary Brazil[edit]

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

Preliminary tournament, non-notable. Final 32, final 16 events of K1 have been deleted via AfD in the past for the same reason. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is a report of the results. This was a qualifying tournament for a qualifying tournament and the higher level events were deleted as non-notable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event. No significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiji Rouliqiu[edit]

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

On notablility grounds. Lack of references aside - there is nothing that indicates this is more than an obscure invention. Certainly can not be classed as a martial art. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is an unsourced article about something that appears to be more in the category of "things made up one day." I believe this was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai chi softball. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage or indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwalpreet Singh[edit]

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

A rather unotable actor it seems (also from a creator who has quite a few afds that have happened with these) Almost sounds like a promotion. (And it needs a better layout anyway) And no reliable sources either. Wgolf (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not result in any notable mentions. Some of the reviews of movies listed in the article page do not mention this actor as well. Arunram (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's the kind of actor article you see at AfD all the time. No significant coverage, no major appearances in notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No major roles or achievements. Fails WP:NACTOR. The movies specified in "Film career" does not have this actor's name as an actor. Athachil (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karalina Tjapko[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler, just competing at a tournament is not enough. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:SPORTCRIT which states "[t]he guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Competed at 2013 World Championships (now stated in the article) which is a major international competition at the highest level. Thus the presumption of notability exists and I see no evidence for that presumption to be overcome. RonSigPi (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - According to this has actually competed in the last 2 world championships (2013 and 2014) [11].RonSigPi (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mere fact that Latvia keeps sending her to the world championships despite her not winning any matches there does not seem sufficient to show notability. It merely shows that she's considered the best female Latvian wrestler in her class and given Latvia's population of 2 million, I'm not sure that's enough. Population wise, that's less than the population of Brooklyn and being the best wrestler in Brooklyn isn't sufficient grounds for notability. There's no qualifying for the world championships, say through continental championships. For example, Kitti Korosi of Hungary lost her first match in the same weight division at the 2013 European championships 7-0 and still appeared at the 2013 world championships. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage--just routine sports results. Also fails WP:MANOTE. Simply showing up is not enough--unless she makes the Olympics. This may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few points. First, its worth pointing out that WP:MANOTE is an essay and not a guideline, similar to WP:CFBCOACH. Second I dont know how one 'fails' WP:MANOTE as it merely shows how notability or deletion are supported. Of a similar note, I dont see how any of the listed points, either for deletion or notability, are relevant for this person and thus dont know how its 'failed'. Third, it seems like the martial arts project wants to expand its reach. Not only a wrestler being claimed as one that the martial arts project has authority over, but even boxing seems to be getting roped in (see deletion discussion for Mickey Goodwin). While one can argue if wrestling and boxing are martial arts, the WP:MANOTE are not written with a wrestler in mind. There is no 'finding of a wrestling style' as would be needed for 2. The 2nd half of 3 states that world champion of an 'organization', but that seems more geared to UFC/Bellator than what is commonly considered a governing body. There are no 'belts' in wrestling as 4 discusses and typically books in an 'art' are not common in wrestling. That leaves 1 and the first part of 3, which would apply to almost any athlete, not specifically a martial artist. I just dont see WP:MANOTE it carrying weight here. That leaves us with WP:GNG and I think as said before WP:SPORTCRIT is met and thus a presumption of GNG applies.RonSigPi (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there's so much wrong with your comment I hardly know where to start. First, you're upset because the two oldest martial arts known to man, boxing and wrestling, are being treated as--martial arts. Then you're saying that MANOTE obviously can't apply to wrestlers because they can't meet the criteria--and you list the fact that they don't compete for major organizations or medals. Then what is FILA and the medals they award? You say MANOTE doesn't apply to Mickey Goodwin, but nowhere in that discussion is MANOTE mentioned. In fact, someone is upset because we used the notability criteria for boxers (NBOX) for--a boxer. Finally, for this discussion there is nothing to show GNG is met. The only sources are links to results and that's not considered significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with what you have said, but am more taken a back by what you said and how it was said. Its time for WP:CIV to rule the day so I will not address your comment substantively. I think I have made my points in a reasonable way and its time for others to speak.RonSigPi (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think just appearing at an event is sufficient to show notability and there's no significant independent coverage. If she qualifies for the Olympics she'll be notable, but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 17 October 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. A7 Secret ^account 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Joy[edit]

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

Very poor sources. Two are about another band and don't mention Artificial Joy, one is an Amazon page, and another is a very brief mention in a blog. The band self-published an EP and toured for a few years, but isn't enough to establish WP:BAND. Some members may be borderline notable, but notability is not inherited. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was created in December 2013, it had several clean-up tags on it from May, indicating it was a copy/paste job. [[12]] This was presumably because it was originally derived from the article Artificial Joy NYC. It was, in fact, almost identical, so I turned that article into a redirect before I noticed what was going on. Messy stuff. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source is a legit source from Official Amazon biography http://www.amazon.com/Size-14/e/B000APVK22/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel, No reason for article deletion, User Grayfell editing all entries relating to Robt Ptak and seems to have some kind of personal vendetta against the artist --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The profile on that link specifically says it's provided by the artist (or rather the related band Size 14) to Amazon, it is not WP:SECONDARY, and further, it barely even mentions Artificial Joy. I have no vendetta against the artist, and have been editing these articles because they are mostly badly written and in need of cleanup. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon bio mentioning Artificial Joy is managed by the artist Size 14 so it is WP:SECONDARY All members of Artificial Joy were in major label bands so meet the requirements for WP:BAND please check each members bio for proof of this - Drummer Alex Elena was even the drummer for Avril Lavigne's album Let go^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtitlemeplease (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Size 14 was founded by Robt Ptak, and according to his Wikipedia page (written by the same small group of editors), he manages the band's Facebook page and other websites. Robt Ptak is Artificial Joy. The bio itself specifically makes that point. It's clearly the same person, let's not pretend otherwise. The band may, possibly pass some of the WP:BAND specifics, but I don't think they pass WP:GNG without some reliable secondary sources. Passing GNG is the more pressing goal. As an alternate, the article could be merged with Robt Ptak, but lacking solid sources, it would be greatly reduced in size. Grayfell (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:BAND therefore it does not need deleting. Thanks --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, since there are no reliable, secondary sources, the band has not been established as notable. The band didn't produce any non-self-published albums, received no substantial press coverage that I've seen, and has not been cited by any notable outside musicians as being influential. Other than Ptak, the two supposedly notable members are Milena Mepris and Alex Elena. While their membership might, arguably, lead to the band meeting WP:BAND, those articles have too many notability problems of their own to ignore.

Mepris' article (which was also created by you) has extremely poor sources. After looking into it closer, I'm suggesting that her article be merged with Pin Me Down, since that is her only substantiated claim to notability.

Elena's only claim to fame seems to be having worked with more famous musicians, but again, there are no reliable secondary sources. The only secondary source for THAT article is a brief blurb in a metal blog which accepts WP:UGC, lists no author, and reads like a press release. Again, very poor sources there.

Claiming that the article just barely meets a single requirement of WP:BAND seems like trying to squeak by on a technicality. After thinking about it further, think this article should be merged with Ptak's instead of being deleted. Without reliable, secondary sources this is just a semi-WP:WALLEDGARDEN of vanity articles. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell is following me around on Wikipedia editing all of my posts, he has even been editing the company I WORK for wikipedia page, this is bordering on Stalking Could someone else please check whether the Artificial Joy page should be reinstated? --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitlemeplease, when you link to a user's page, it notifies that user, which is why I am responding. I understand your concern but stalking is not what's happening. You added spam to an article on my watchlist (the UK Locksmithing thing). When I reverted that, I also checked your edit history to see if you had added any other spammy links. This is common practice to prevent vandalism. I then edited some of the articles you created to clean them up. When doing so, I added them to my WP:WATCHLIST. You retaliated by blanking my talk page. I decided it wasn't worth the hassle, and backed off, but those articles remained on my watchlist. When one of those article showed up again, I decided to look closer and began editing them. If you feel my behavior is inappropriate, I suggest you describe what is happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There are only few people watching this deletion discussion, so discussing it here is probably not going to accomplish much. WP:AIN, however, is very active, and will attract administrator attention if you still feel that is necessary. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell Sorry I don't have time to make some report. I just only ever edited the pages so that these bands primarily Size 14 and its associated acts/members got a bit of recognition for the music they produced in the 90s. If you want to try and get these deleted/wiped it thats your choice. --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing style is very distinctive. Are you the same person who wrote the Amazon bio? Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not write the Amazon bio, I'm just a fan of the band, I'm from the UK not Los Angeles - Whoever owns the copyright to their music/has access to edit a Amazon Artists bio would have wrote it. --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Frost[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP with severe doubt about notability The Banner talk 12:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Calambert2014 (talk)) Someone just added some refs to prove that these information are correct. I can promise you that all these information are reliable and correct. If you want a proof of what has been written, please click on this link. http://www.bitlanders.com/MatthewFrost There is an other bio in that article. Please don't delete this page, I worked a lot to create it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calambert2014 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete there were a lot of links added, but none are reliably published sources which is the requirement for having a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- option 2 would be to rename and refocus to: Aspirational (short film). it looks like it is getting some buzz in the some important culture sources like Ad Age and AV Club. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 11 October 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) 23:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruan Life Sciences[edit]

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

no evidence of notability� DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quick look on google reveals the only results for this company are business directories and a few articles and forum postings containing a passing mention of the company for sponsoring "Miss Kyrgyzstan 2013". Dolescum (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mladen Savović[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of an apparently unnotable person. Created by three single-purpose accounts: Joksimovic (talk · contribs), Mladjo (talk · contribs), and EleonoraP (talk · contribs). bender235 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article looks like a claim of significance, and we have no evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Crunk[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to Daz Dillinger. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources after several searches. Redirect as a valid search term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 19 October 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SBN Live[edit]

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

Unotable show that seems to have no sources or anything. Wgolf (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way just tagged a few of these for deletion-seem to be made by a sock puppet. Wgolf (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuran Mohan[edit]

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

Well it has sources so it is no longer a prod, but from what it looks like too soon IMO Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Just 1 dubbing role and few insignificant acting roles don't satisfy WP:NACTOR.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no significant coverage in reliable sources as well as notability is questioned. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:38, 17 October 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. Possible merge or redirect can be discussed and decided at the talk page if necessary. Randykitty (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Lippi (journalist)[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The italian version of this article was deleted twice, first in 2011, then again in 2013 after his death.[13].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: just for the record, it was not deleted per lack of notability, both the times it was speedy deleted as an "empty page/test page/meaningless or tautological". Cavarrone 05:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I don't want to overstate anything. I would guess its content was even more sparse than this one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources at all to verify him. I also tried "Claudio Raoul Vittorio Lippi" on Google news and got nothing. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just try "Claudio Lippi" "Milan Channel", or "Claudio Lippi" "giornalista". I see a bunch of sources on Google with these keywords. Cavarrone 07:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added two good references from one source. No doubt about verification, and possibly notability too. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After some researches, keep. Lippi received obituaries in all the most notable Italian newspapers and magazines, eg. Corriere della Sera [14], La Repubblica [15], La Gazzetta dello Sport [16], Il Giornale [17]. He is still remembered one year later: [18], [19], even in the last days ([20]). According to the articles, he was also a footballer who played in Serie C2, so he would also pass, even if borderline, WP:NFOOTY#2. At best, it could be merged and redirected to Milan Channel, the TV-channel he worked for during his career. Cavarrone 07:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent wp:notability has been shown, although if the content contributors want this merged, or want to create some kind of list article, that is fine. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 18 October 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. Deor (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Greenfield (author)[edit]

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

This is an autobiography by Psydoc47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). That user is also known as Dr. David Greenfield <psydoc47 at gmail dot com>.

Dr. Greenfield is a US-based clinical psychologist who specializes in treating Internet addiction. You can view his resume elsewhere, in PDF or HTML formats.

It was a mistake for Dr. Greenfield to put an autobiographical article on Wikipedia. But let's consider our options now. We have two choices:

Keep and cleanup.
Delete.

I was unable to tell whether or not Dr. Greenfield meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in the first place. Does he? If so, we should keep the article and clean it up. (We could trim it down to a stub, to make the job easier.) If not, we should delete the article.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the CV. Fails WP:PROF--almost no peer-reviewed publications. No major awards; no national offices. No evidence of meeting NAUTHOR: almost all the "publications" listed here are mere presentations and mostly local meetings. No evidence of meeting GNG, & no reason to expect any. I might consider deleting this as G11 speedy, advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting the general notability guideline, or any subject specific guidelines.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 13:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per DGG. I note that he's had some presentations and panels at national conferences, but still fails the PROF test. Presenting at national conferences is a bare minimum for academics. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bisek[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler, attending events does not establish notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets WP:SPORTCRIT multiple times over which states "[t]he guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Bisek has competed at three world championships and one world cup. In addition, he won a bronze medal at the 2014 World Championships. RonSigPi (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another example of an AfD that annoys me. First, he has been to multiple world championships and the article makes that clear. Second, he was a world bronze medalist. While the article at the time of the AfD didn't state this, typing 'Andy Bisek' in Google yields this information in the titles of the first page of hits (i.e., you don't even have to click on any of the results - its right there on the search result titles). Probably in less time than it took to make the AfD one could have found this out and added this information to the article. Not like this appeared to be a completely irrelevant person from the face of the article. As usual, instead of working to make Wikipedia better and improving articles (a positive action) there is a rush to delete without doing due diligence (a negative action). Sorry for the rant, but wanted to vent. RonSigPi (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bronze medal at the world championships is sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just competing isn't enough, but winning a medal certainly is.Mdtemp (talk) 18:44, 14 October 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. Given the absence of any discussion, this is a "soft delete", equivalent to a PROD. Randykitty (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Durkin[edit]

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

Comedian/activist who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER; sources 2 and 3 currently in article are too primary to establish notability, while "MOTHA" is not a notable organization so its award does not confer notability. Jinkinson talk to me 19:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 11 October 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. Clearly not notable DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sreerag Nambiar[edit]

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

Falls under too soon. Now before anyone points out the number of refs-keep in mind that this guy has yet to have ANY films be released, so he eventually will need a article, just not yet Wgolf (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC/WP:ENTERTAINER. No notable achievements or coverage. Athachil (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt von Anstetten[edit]

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

Fictional character that as far as I can tell was barley on this show that it is talking about. Probably a redirect to List of Verbotene Liebe characters be the best. Wgolf (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced plot summary about a minor fictional character. Reyk _YO! 20:25, 13 October 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. Salix alba (talk): 09:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scarfolk[edit]

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

I see limited evidence that this blog is notable, though some citations are present. In addition, the entire article has been created by an editor claiming to be the blog's original/only creator, suggesting lack of public interest. No substantive edits to it beyond minor changes to categories have been made by any other user. Blythwood (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom not notable .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you want to remove this article. I know it was written by the person responsible for Scarfolk in the first place but, if it gets deleted no one will write another one as it has a small following and people don't like to write articles for wikipedia as they get taken down all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarazoo (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable blog/multimedia project given its "Reception" section. While the article could do with revisions, an outright deletion would not befit the article.--DrWho42 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of sockpuppetting attempts https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scarfolk-Council/469491913116002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.221.165 (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — 27.252.221.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Did you mean "canvassing"? I thought sock puppetry referred to the use of alternate accounts to sway discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppeting? You mean the thing where one edit IP addresses pop up out of nowhere to push an agenda? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Scarfolk is a brand and includes a physical product (printed book) as well as existing in electronic medium, to delete it from Wikipedia is like saying that the brand never existed. The description clearly states that Scarfolk is fictional. It should definitely remain on Wikipedia, otherwise what exactly is the point of Wikipedia ? WikiMaddi (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Do we now delete works of fiction? Is humour to be removed? I can see no other reason for this nomination. Scarfolk itself is substantial as a project and it has also been picked up and commented upon by the mainstream press, which is exactly what we look for. "It's a blog, delete it" is to miss the point entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The fictional Scarfolk does have references in print and online media, and there is a physical product available ~~now~~ in 2 days. --Dee Earley (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established by widespread coverage, which is referenced in the article itself. Bonusballs (talk) 09:36, 14 October 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 Praga Khan. We've got to decide sometime, and redirect seem ssafe enough DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Power (Praga Khan song)[edit]

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

Song that has been tagged for nearly 3 years with no notability. Probably should be redirected to the singer Wgolf (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:51, 11 October 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 Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camping (gaming)[edit]

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

It has several issues, like original research, how to content, and written like a debate. It also has two sources. Does this even matter? EMachine03 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) EMachine03 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - essay and original research. LS1979 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found a previous discussion from five years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camping_(video_gaming) . Seems that a suggested rewrite hasn't happened and this can really be Merged into the Glossary Salvidrim has suggested. LS1979 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Glossary of video game terms - Seems like a natural fit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 11 October 2014:: (UTC)

That might just work! However, we might need some more consensus. EMachine03 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to glossary. It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD—page probably could have been merged with little fanfare. So "camping" has coverage, but not quite enough to source more than a few good definitions on its variations and maybe some examples. I doubt most of the 27kB of OR at hand here can be sourced. Might be worth differentiating between spawn/base and other kinds of camping in the glossary, though. Some sources: [21][22][23][24] czar ♔ 04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glossary of video game terms. It can always be recreated later if more sources are found to demonstrate notability. A WP:VG/RS search turns up results, of course, but the hits are generally not in depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or selective merge to Glossary of video game terms. I seem to have a little more faith in the notability of the subject than others here, but not a lot more. The camper isn't just an activity or tactic but a quasi-character and trope that comes up repeatedly in fan fiction, etc. (see Diary of a Camper, one of the earliest and best known Machinimas). Some other sources that talk specifically about camping: Kotaku - In Defense of the Camper, Conference paper - Playing Dirty, and also things like this: "That's not the way you play the game" -- about camping operating under thea ssumption readers know what it means [or will understand per the Reddit post title]. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I'm supporting keeping the article as a notable subject -- the content goes overboard and would need to be substantially edited. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Paul[edit]

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

This article probably does not meet any of the notability criteria in WP:GNG

It seems to be a small independent paid service (management or HR) for universities to contract, of the size and economic scope of a cafeteria service or taxi service.

The person that the article is about does have a PhD in his subject, I'm not sure if someone having a PhD makes that person notable or not, probably not.

Createangelos (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is a sort of argument against the deletion which I'm recommending, the guy's website criticalthinking.org does have some nice writing on it by his staff or collaborators such as

"The enlightened person may well be perplexed: Where, in this mission statement, is the concept of education? Is “success in college and careers” to be equated with educating the mind? Is developing the ability to “compete successfully in the global economy” the same as cultivating minds capable of reasoning in good faith within multiple perspectives? How does this core curriculum integrate critical thinking, education, and the deep learning of content? How will this curriculum help students develop the intellectual virtues that define the ethical, or fairminded, critical thinker – virtues such as intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual autonomy, intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, confidence in reason and fairmindedness? To what extent are these virtues desired (or feared) by the business community, educators, parents? Is the Core Curriculum compatible with emancipating the mind, liberating people, and making the world more just for all humans and other sentient creatures? Have we so lost our way as to believe that the cultivation of the intellect is to be equated with developing “thinking skills” that simply help people function better as workers?"

(end quote) Createangelos (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example something like this article from 'riffwiki' whatever it is, would be nice in Wikipedia, but the problem is, it is like an ad http://riffwiki.com/Foundation_for_Critical_Thinking These critical thinking guys seem to need some help, they have some good ideas, but using Wikipedia as a marketing tool is not one of them. Maybe a small article which actually describes the organization or how it defines 'critical thinking' might be OK. It might be notable that several universities believe it, whatever it is, it it can be described or characterised by anyone who actually understands it. Createangelos (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed up the AfD page. ansh666 22:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real evidence for notability besides that his organization has sold his program to a few minor universities and colleges. . DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable regional academic person. COI suspected in article-creation: originally written by a 1-subject (this one) account. Note that the subject's own website is called CriticalThinking.org and the article original writer is a user named: Think-Critical. looks like self-promotional autobiography. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete- I'm not sure if any of those calling for deletion have any knowledge about the subject, but Richard Paul is an acknowledged leader and innovator in the field of Critical Thinking. (and no, I am not a relative or paid by them to say this). He is cited in most of the scholarly articles in education relating to critical thinking that I have read. He is an innovator because the Paul/Elder theory on Critical thinking encompasses a humanistic component ( strong minded vs weak minded thinking) that was never discussed prior. While his work might not be recognizable to those not actively engaged in the field, anyone taking the time to actually reading his work, must be impressed, for it is incredibly well thought out and enlightening. (neefly)

neefly, strange as it sounds, much of your impassioned defense of Richard William Paul is irrelevant in the wonderful world of Wikipedia. "incredibly well thought out and enlightening" doesn't matter. "acknowledged leader and innovator in the field of Critical Thinking" doesn't matter, except to the degree it causes him to receive mention/citations elsewhere. However, "He is cited in most of the scholarly articles in education relating to critical thinking that I have read" is more important. See my separate comment below. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I search google scholar for "RW Paul" instead of "Richard William Paul", a lot of hits pop out, with citation counts in the hundred, even up to just over 1,000. I'm not familiar enough with WP:NACADEMICS to know if this meets notability requirements. Aynone out there who can enlighten me? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was set up by an SPA User:Think-Critical that shares a name with the organisation it promotes. As it stands, it's solely promoting this organisation. Delete and if he's notable as an academic, someone will undoubtedly set up a new page for him at a different time. AdventurousMe (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are zero secondary sources in the article, so he'd fail WP:GNG and WP:42. He's not cited widely in the leading undergraduate textbooks. (See: John Chaffee, Thinking Critically (9th ed.), ISBN 978-0-618-94719-5; Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (10th ed.), ISBN 978-0-07-803828-0; Peter Facione, THINK Critically, ISBN 978-0-295-73845-8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. He is cited once, in end-note 1 from page 2, of Hassham, Irwin, Nardone, and Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction (4th ed.) ISBN 978-0-07-340743-2. I don't think that allows him to pass the PROF test; however, if you can find additional evidence, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 13 October 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 under A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Speech- Clear Discription[edit]

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

Not a manual appears to apply, article is in its entirety a description of how to use the Enlgish language. Amortias (T)(C) 08:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is covered under not a how to guide and what Wikipedia is not. It is also entirely unreferenced. Although the misspelled title and other errors in the article might be fixed, I don't think it's a suitable subject. Libby norman (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A10 as a duplicate of Part of speech. —teb728 t c 10:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content is more like duplicate of the individual articles of each part of speech (Noun, Verb etc), not so much of only Parts of speech itself. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy delete Speedy delete per TEB728. My delete reason is that I am pretty sure it is a bad case of WP:NOTMANUAL, and it is entirely unreferenced. It is WP:NOT even. Can't we just delete this and move on? EMachine03 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sorvino[edit]

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

Actor/film festival owner who has won only local awards and appears to have only local notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1: there is no valid rationale for deletion in the nomination. Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saat Phere[edit]

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

Reason AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close down - Malformed AFD, while subject is highly notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly merge? Definitely highly notable and should not be deleted, but I think this might be merged with the existing article Saptapadi as I believe both refer to the same part of the marriage ceremony. It's an important subject and would benefit from a bit of attention and expansion from subject experts. Libby norman (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libby norman Saat Phere is little more common term and modern. Previously this article was called Satphere, it remained for a few years, I had changed the title. I wanted to merge first, but I just dropped that idea because both of the articles have different types of content. Both of these words have different origins. Agniparinayana is even more accurate term but not used as much. These articles require some expansion. Some have also confused Parikrama with Saat Phere.

Reason? According to nominator it is:- Hindi term is used for article creation in English wikipedia [25] Nominator is just trying to take revenge because I nominated one of his article for deletion, it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer love (novel). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 11 October 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 withdrawn by Nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Industry Network[edit]

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

Mostly Original Research and/or poorly referenced. Links to local press outlets do make passing mention of the network. Appears to fail WP:ORG —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tentative keep for now. I agree there are issues with the article as it stands, but I've done a very quick search and I think the organisation may meet notability of organisations guidelines. I've found references in two books and a UN document, possibly suggesting that while it is local in reach its impact is wider. I'd like to take a closer look at the sources and see if this can be improved to a point where solid references justify a keep. Libby norman (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This was nominated and discussed with a consensus to keep all of two weeks ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN)), a fact which is noted on the talk page of the article if the user wasn't otherwise aware. It is completely unacceptable to turn around and nominate it again on the same basis. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per The Drover's Wife it was open for 11 days from 8th September 2014 till 19th September Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN) .~~Hence do feel it is unacceptable nominate again and so soon.~~It has been nominated again too soon on the same basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Primarily because this one was just kept via an AfD that ended just a few weeks ago. GNG/ORG seems borderline, but I think it best to give it some time to improve since it already ran the gauntlet. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN). This is too soon. — Cirt (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Far too soon for a new AfD, especially on the same basis as the old one. Frickeg (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOM. Comments from User:The Drover's Wife and User:Pharaoh of the Wizards my "unacceptable" behavior are not appreciated and fail WP:AGF. The article was marked as unreviewed by a new editor at the very bottom of the new pages patrol feed. I missed the talk page and posted here in good faith for review. Comments against other editors like this are why AfD is so back-logged, because it makes it an unpleasant environment in which to work. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify with apology My sincere apologies just meant to say it was had been nominated again so soon nothing personal there sorry again if my wording were wrong I also never meant that you had done it deliberately or was a comment on your nomination ,it was a general comment that it had been renominated too soon,Really sorry if it meant otherwise .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 12 October 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. WP:SK#1 Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Tour[edit]

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

Unverified. The concept of the article - touring while blindfolded - is not supported by the references; they are about tourism by blind people. I thought it might be a joke or hoax, but I did find a few references to individuals doing this. However, it is certainly not a trend, nor did I find any commercially offered tours of this kind - just individuals doing it for a brief time to make some kind of point. PROD was removed by the author with the comment "Give me a day or two to gather up some relevant references. Rest assured this is a prevalent concept, it happens at a lot of places." However, that was a week ago, and the article remains unverified. MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that more sources have been added showing that this is a recognised concept and has taken place on an organised basis in a number of locations. Maybe needs moving to Blindfolded Tourism or Blindfolded Sightseeing with several redirects from alternative terms.: Noyster (talk), 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination @Noyster: great job of finding and adding information from reliable sources. I agree that the article could be better named. I suggest that after the nomination is closed you move it to one or the other, probably "Blindfolded tourism" (small T, of course). --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 12 October 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) 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minhazur Rahman Nayan[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent source. The sources include are not reliable enough to establish the notability. Most of the reference are from IMDb and Wikipedia. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. – nafSadh did say 16:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: producing one film that got into one lesser international film festival is quite ordinary. When he produces a full-length film, or gets into Cannes Film Festival, get back to us. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.K (band)[edit]

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

No such group exists in South Korea. I can not find any reliable sources that the group has been formed by S.M Entertainment or has any musical releases. Rockysmile11 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nationalities of the band members are given as "Korean-Welsh" and "Korean-Kiwi." The Hangul and romanized verions of their names don't even have the same number of syllables. The article is obviously a joke. Claimsworth (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bamil Gutierrez Collado[edit]

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

Looking at the page the subject of this BLP certainly appears notable but I've been unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources independent of the artist. The numerous charts listed are either website or radio station charts and there is also a comment on the talkpage questioning the accuracy of the chart history. I do not believe either GNG or MUSICBIO is met here. J04n(talk page) 23:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish name misspelled. Try searching as Bamil Gutiérrez Collado. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 02:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs after 6 months? Is the BLP policy a policy or a joke? Bazj (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amelyn Veloso[edit]

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

Keeps on getting the info changed as well as the prod removed so this is the next step-not sure how notable they are either. Wgolf (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage to meet GNG. "Keeps on getting the info changed" and "prod removed" are not deletion reasons. If you are "not sure how notable they are" you are expected to exercise a little diligence yourself, per WP:BEFORE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellapaige[edit]

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

Too soon it looks like. I think she will have a page someday-but not today. This also seems like a fan's POV not a neutral. Wgolf (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've pretty much removed all of the unsourced, promotional content since it was so non-neutral that she could've been speedied for that alone. There is an assertion of notability here through her association with Bieber so we should have a more thorough discussion, just so we have an official consensus. That said, I couldn't really find anything that talked about the singer apart from her relationship with Bieber. Some mention is to be expected, but I couldn't really find enough out there to show a true depth of coverage about the singer herself. Everything was about her maybe dating Bieber, about salacious rumors of her sleeping with him, and about the cyberbullying she received as a result of hanging out with him. None of the articles really focused on her career at all- it was all about her in relation to Bieber. Since her relationship wasn't well-known enough to really warrant a mention in Bieber's article, I'll just vote to delete. If anyone wants to userfy/incubate this I have no true objection, just that at this point in time it's just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Ngo[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Tagged for RS since Feb 2013. Cannot find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Previous AFD refers to possible foreign language sources, but none are included, with or without translation. There's an embedded external link to a movie he starred in, but I'm not sure that can be considered enough, since we need "significant roles in multiple notable films". Begoon ^talk 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, subject has received arguably significant coverage in some ethnic media (here, and here) but nothing outside of that that I have been able to find. Therefore, not finding more reliable sources I can't support keeping this article. Furthermore, this article might be subject to speedy delete per WP:G4.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Revish[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person, but created before March 2010 so ineligible for BLP Prod. Not seeing any reliable, in depth sources out there that would confer notability on the subject, thus fails the relevant notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION. My bad I guess. A reference has been added that seems to indicate Revish has won a pile of Emmys and other awards. Not sure how I missed them but there we go. Happy for any passing admin to close this up since there's no other delete !votes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These things happen. I myself have made similar mistakes. Now I hope nobody will accuse me of saving an article from deletion... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all on you buddy :p Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:06, 12 October 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. Deor (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 991[edit]

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

Admin bizarrely declined PROD by two other editors. Article appears to be more West Midlands buscruft/original research, cited only to timetables, no evidence of independent reliable secondary coverage about Route 991. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - until we get a clear consensus, such Prods may have to come here. Does anyone have their own standards? Can somebody point to past AfDs for helpful precedents? Bearian (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's West Midlands bus route 94, West Midlands bus route 97, West Midlands bus routes 246, 300, 311 and 313 and West Midlands Stratford Road bus Corridor etc. (which combined 9 bus routes in one AfD). I may look like I have a vendetta, but it's simply the case I raised one at AfD then others kept coming to light. Sionk (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bus cruft with no evidence of notability, All 5 sources on this article are useless (3 point to a wp article and the other 2 are dead ....), Anyway most bus/coach routes are removed unless the sources are up to scratch ... This on the other hand isn't. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some bus routes which are notable, this one isn't Jeni ^(talk) 09:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Farr[edit]

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

Author contested prod saying there is much info out there to prove notability - said when contested prod. yet same author writes in article that there is very little info out there on Farr. therefore, IMHO, it is non verifiable nn person. Original author can't have it both ways - either there is or isn't much info available. I am going with what he wrote in article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per MichaelQSchmidt's work) ~~Delete (per following paragraph). Comment~~. I haven't yet had time to do a search, but I did make an edit to the article. It used another Wikipedia article (Lady Luck (1936 film)) as its only reliable source. Of course, this is not allowed, and I removed it. The other article lists no reliable sources at all, so there is nothing to borrow for this article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging, but the news is not good. Patricia Farr apparently starred in at least 3 movies and one 12 part serial, along with lesser parts in more than a dozen other movies. However, to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, she must have "had significant roles in multiple notable films." Per WP:MOVIE, for a film to be notable, it's not good enough just to be part of a large compendium: "Examples of coverage INSUFFICIENT [my emphasis] to fully establish notability include...listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide...". Well, that's all I found: entries in places like [26] and a book that lists more than 1200 movies. The NY Times [27] said "Farr starred or co-starred in such forgotten fare as Speed to Spare (1937) and All-American Sweetheart (1938)." Sorry, but that doesn't sound like appearance in notable movies. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to MichaelQSchmidt! I've changed my vote, above, to Keep. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. I found a paragraph in the Ogden Standard-Examiner and another in the Circleville Herald via Newspapers.com, but nothing really significant. Basically she was an up-and-coming starlet who never really got there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 October 2014
Comment: I'm adding her full filmography to the article and while she's done a lot of uncredited roles, I also see where she's been the star in a lot of films. User:MichaelQSchmidt should probably come in on this, as he's good at finding sources for these older films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she was a major performer or at least a named one in the following films: Tailspin Tommy (serial), The Lady in Scarlet, Three of a Kind (1936 film), Lady Luck (1936 film), All American Sweethearts (a review for this is mentioned here and there's a brief mention here and here), and Lady Behave!. I am aware that the existence of these articles doesn't automatically mean notability, but the mini review in the one book does make me think that there is coverage for the films- it just never made it to the internet. Not voting yet, but I'm going to keep digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tokyogirl79. What worries me about this AFD (and my Delete vote) is that the movies Farr starred in currently have Wikipedia articles -- but with the exception of the serial Tailspin Tommy, the articles (The Lady in Scarlet, Lady Luck, and All-American Sweethart) have no sources showing notability, and in an admittedly quick perusal I didn't notice any. It would be great if some were found. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That worries me as well. Part of me wants to argue keep based on that, but I'd still have to show that those films are notable themselves and so far it's slow going. I'm finding some hints of coverage, but finding coverage for that long ago is like trying to pull the teeth out of a running gazelle with a hammer and a cast on my foot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the originator of the Patricia Farr page. Larry Traveling Man says that I used the film "Lady Luck" as a "reliable source". I did not do that. The reference was meant as a footnote to indicate which film was being suggested by me as the one in which Farr appeared as leading lady. I'm highly annoyed that Larry, after perhaps a superficial reading, has misrepresented what I did. To illustrate what I meant without again offending Larry, I have re-written the first line of the page. Akld guy (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if your feelings were hurt, but since all that was provided was a link, I took it as a claim to be a reliable source -- which it was not. If it was intended to be an explanatory footnote (of the previous text ..."in at least one"), then it would have required additional wording, such as "One of the films was Lady Luck (1936)". However, that also would have required a reliable source (which the linked article was not), and so also would have been removed. Thanks to the research being done, it's now possible to add a source; it can be added assuming the article makes it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as suitable now-sourced and further sourceable stub that preserves a piece of American cinematic history. Tokyogirl79's work inspired me to look, and I found that she has been noted in multiple reliable sources and her body of verifiable work meets WP:ENT #2. While it would be wonderful to have reams of 1930s-40s media covering her work, her career sadly ended with her 1948 death. This may likely never be as all-inclusive and copious an article as something on Marilyn Monroe, but so what? It serves the project to inform our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. It's been improved enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This clears the notability threshold, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 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.

^ http://www.allmusic.com/artist/alex-elena-mn0000326027/credits. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://www.allmusic.com/artist/alex-elena-mn0000326027/credits. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]