Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 October	14 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 keep. clear agreement DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Rights[edit]

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

Nominating article of my own creation. Please note that my intent is not to prove a point; rather it is so that either I or Spshu can be apprised finally of what does and does not constitute the notability of the article's subject. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is up for deletions, since ATinySliver will not tolerate a Notability tag and falsely claims that I want it deleted.

Delete. Since, ATinySliver wants judgement now, instead of any time to find more sources. Article only has one significant source, Variety, twice once for Indie Right and again for Nelson Madison Films. Variety is primarily a media/entertainment news source while a major one is one of limited scope/interest. Most others are routine in coverage and possible unreliable (Amazon) or about the films. As such, Variety articles fail on WP:GNG as: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." and WP:AUD indicates: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." So, a major source like AP, Reuters, ABC News or other network news, might by itself carry notability, Variety does not. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See talk: [user] [article] —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe I'm biased, since I seem to recall that I'm the one who added the Variety sources, but Variety is a solid source and pretty much the gold standard when it comes to film-related articles. Some of the other sources are a bit iffy, but there's enough coverage for me to err on the side of keep. It needs further cleanup, but this can easily be done during normal editing. I think the article is possibly padded with citations to vaguely-related topics, but it's not a crime to describe the co-founder's acting talents. However, it certainly falls short of WP:MASK or WP:BOMBARD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources provided are enough to establish notability, although as Ninja noted some of them are iffy (many are just blogs). If we keep the article, please "do us all a favor" and "edit" the article to "remove" all the "unnecessary quotation marks" in the text. That's really "not the way to write an encyclopedia". --MelanieN (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the disadvantages of having been a journalist ("Quote your sources!"). Tamed per MelanieN. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion is minimal, and assuming I'm not lacking in proper etiquette, I'd keep as nom. Article has never not been in progress. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:54, 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 04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Lowrance[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league ballplayer, fails GNG. First AfD appears invalid since it was based on him possibly playing in 2012, which he didn't. Wizardman 23:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.Spanneraol (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, just a list of external links.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 02:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no recollection of de-proding this in 2011, but I did. I regret that now. Just because he was "active" didn't mean he should've been merged, since there were no sources beyond the external links that provide little. This is the best I can find now, and it's not even sufficient for a redirect if he were to sign with someone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero notability.--Yankees10 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another one I AfD'd that was kept that is now going to be deleted. #Vindication. Alex (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:45, 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 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Sánchez (pitcher, born 1987)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player who appears to possibly be done. Nothing that would satisfy GNG. Wizardman 22:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a solid piece, but it's the only solid piece I can find. So, that doesn't add up to GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above arguments.Spanneraol (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.--Yankees10 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league pitcher. Alex (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 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 redirect to CTV Kitchener . Without prejudice to a different target, List of CTV personalities is entirely plausible as well. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Furman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local news anchor in a local television market, sourced exclusively to her profile on her own employer's website. This is not a claim of notability that gets a journalist into Wikipedia — the network's main national anchor certainly qualifies, but not every local anchor on a midsized market's local affiliate — and her own station's website is a primary source that cannot contribute to getting her over the inclusion bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CTV Kitchener I checked Google books and Google newspapers without finding anything, and took a quick look at the first page of Google web. The topic is already included in the encyclopedia, so WP:Notability does not provide a policy basis for a deletion. I added the one reference in this article to CTV Kitchener. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Redirect, possibly to List of CTV personalities. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 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 04:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Martinez (baseball)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG. While a bullpen catcher would most likely be notable without issue, a second-stringer is a stretch, especially when I can't find third-party sources. Wizardman 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. The sources I've seen list him as the teams "bullpen catcher" for the World Series teams... don't know where this "second stringer" stuff comes from... but a bullpen catcher is part of the coaching staff and thus notable.Spanneraol (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bullpen catcher isn't part of a team's coaching staff. Teams are limited to seven coaches, and bullpen catchers aren't counted. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most teams include the bullpen catcher under the coaching staff list on their websites. They often have may more than seven coaches with the proliferation of "assistant" pitching and hitting coaches.Spanneraol (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant hitting and/or pitching coaches count against the seven-coach limit. Just because teams list bullpen catchers on the roster doesn't mean they're coaches. Teams mostly do it to avoid confusion ("Hey, who is #79 in the bullpen wearing catcher's gear?"). - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not listed on the Red Sox coaching staff. Alex (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think bullpen catchers should be included within BASE/N since many of them don't have coverage. This isn't the same to me as an actual "coach". The few redlinks you can find on List of current Major League Baseball team rosters are all bullpen catchers, and some of the bullpen catchers with pages are not convincing; just look at Brian Abraham, Scott Cursi, Nate Dammann, Román Rodríguez, Alex Andreopoulos, Armando Camacaro, Josh Frasier, Alan Butts, Jeff Urgelles, Jesús Tiamo, Marcus Hanel, Heberto Andrade, Jamie Pogue, Pat Burgess, Steve Cilladi, Rob Flippo, and Justin Hatcher, and tell me how convinced you are of their notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, each of those pages should be deleted, and bullpen catchers should be deleted from the roster templates. Not sure who decided that bullpen catchers were notable or counted as "coaches," but they were incorrect. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The team websites all list them as coaches and that is the official source for those roster templates.Spanneraol (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the team web sites list them as bullpen catchers. A bullpen coach is a coach; a bullpen catcher is not a coach. Bullpen catchers wear a uniform during games, so teams list them on the roster in order to avoid confusion [see my comment above], but in no way does that make them coaches or confer notability on them. Under MLB's rules, they are NOT coaches in any sense of the word. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are on the coaching staff page of the team website, not on a generic roster page.Spanneraol (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one place where we need to deviate from MLB.com's roster page. As far as I can tell, bullpen catchers are grouped in that way only because they're uniformed personnel. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained two or three times why they're listed on the roster. I've seen minor league teams list batboys on the roster, for the same reason, but that doesn't make them coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. Appears to be known for just one event. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 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 04:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Chagnon[edit]

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

A one-term mayor of Azusa, California (pop. about 45K) who doesn't seem to have done much as far as the article is concerned. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems abandoned. Last real edit was late last year. -A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article and so does not pass WP:NPOL in spite of holding a sub national office. BritainD (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Minimal references in the article; no coverage found in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A city with a population of 45K does not automatically confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. She could potentially qualify to keep a substantive and properly sourced article — but if all you can do for content is four sentences that offer nothing of substance beyond "she was elected mayor in 2005 but then lost reelection in 2007", and all you can do for sourcing is smartvoter.org (a user-generated content site), then she hasn't cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since there is a source here and a mention here, some local coverage here, and more local coverage here, but generally agree with above, doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yonata Ortega[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league ballplayer, nothing out there that would clearly pass GNG or create auto notability. Wizardman 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill minor league ballplayer.Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing of particular note here. Alex (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you remove the PROD then? Not every article needs a discussion before it's deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in the discussion. Just in case. Alex (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others.--Yankees10 17:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahika sharma[edit]

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

Sadly, no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. WP:NYA and WP:TOOSOON to merit a page. If ever, certainly not today. Wikicology (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is some sort of an allegation of notability, the article is such a mess that I can't make any sense of it. Is the subject a social worker who became an actress, or vice versa? What is an Annamise film? Bearian (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'Mahika sharma"' – artice should not be deleted as it has suitable links and the girl has been working hard in life with helping poor. She has been popular in the state of assam and people are found reading the article.. kindly its assamise film not annamise film. Thnks User:Wikiwikiperson
Comment I moved it to the correctly capitalized name, so either it is deleted or survives it would be with the correct name, Mahika Sharma. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all notability guidelines. Poorly sourced. Can't even consider for WP:TOOSOON. Please delete. Athachil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'REMOVE ALL KIND OF ISSUES"' why sud the article sud b deleted the source are enough it should not be...wiki is for everyone its not only for you guys who want it to be deleted. We are het fan and we think her hardworking sud get wiki name.. soo pls remove issue asap.. do it nw..

Delete Awful, awful, awful. Notability is questionable, but it at least falls under "Blow it up" (per TNT). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be too soon as well copyvio from http://www.newstimeassam.co.in/newsupdates/index.php?aID=1603&highlight=Mahika+Sharma#.VDxX-8lzPJA — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article Mahika Sharma is intresting and have exactly soo many links to prove the person is notsble soo please remove the issue too son — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiperson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and as per WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Guerrero[edit]

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

I read through both AfDs and I'm still not seeing any establishment of GNG notability. He's had a long minor league career, but hasn't played anywhere that would give him automatic notability. Wizardman 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My views have evolved since the prior AFDs.. this guy is another standard issue minor league washout who never made the majors.Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long career notwithstanding, he didn't do much of note or reach any statistical milestones to merit having an article. Alex (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 17:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:01, 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 Nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in home video[edit]

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

This article was filled with unsourced releases, and when I researched them a bit more the release dates were either wrong or no date had been officially announced. Can we delete this until we actually have verifiable information to add? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR Since this will be a notable topic in the near future, I'll replace it with a redirect to List of years in home video for now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Tree Radio[edit]

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

Unable to find sources via search or references that show notability, even while the subject was active. I can find proof that it existed, but not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stesmo (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 02:21, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cam-Back[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources giving this game the nickname "Cam-Back" or "Camback". As a regular season NCAA American football game, it received only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG as the article does not establish why the subject is notable. Great comeback, but does not warrant article on Wikipedia. X96lee15 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT, with lack of WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I don't see the need to merge, as Iron Bowl, 2010 Auburn Tigers football team and 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team sufficiently cover this game already.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This content is adequately covered in the Iron Bowl rivalry series article and 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 2010 Auburn Tigers football team season articles. Per established WP:CFB preferences, only individual regular season games that are historically significant or are otherwise important to the culture and lore of college football should have stand-alone articles. Such content should be directed to season and rivalry articles, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, it provides that "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 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 delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of least expensive films[edit]

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

Original research tag for going on five years now. List is ill-defined and, given the availability of reliable sources, meaningless as a superlative ("least"). The least expensive films would of course be a massive glut of student films, amateur-produced films, most filmmakers' early films, etc. (the bulk of films produced). Unfortunately, reliable sources for budgets exist for almost none of them. The only feasible way this list could be maintained is by using some sort of notability criteria (turning the list into "list of least expensive films with articles on Wikipedia" or "list of least expensive notable films", both of which are WP:TRIVIA). Also, one of the primary sources used is IMDB, which is of course not a reliable source. This was a declined PROD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. A vague list with unclear criteria, but more importantly the criteria is not capable of being properly defined and correct. Serves no purpose. WP:PURPLIST. Harsh (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments. I cannot foresee any worthwhile criteria to apply in this particular scope. If we used more specific metrics, such as cost in comparison to box office revenue, that would be a possible approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Impossible to draw up verifiable criteria for, and I can't see the usefulness of such a list to our readership. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If kept, this is just going to become a list of no budget films and low budget films. Looking for sources, I only found articles about low-budget films that were profitable, critically acclaimed and/or became cult classics. I could find no reliable sources attempting to create a comprehensive list of cheap films. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned. Also agree with above votes. --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 02:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many short films, even in the 21st century, can be produced for less than $40,000 in developing countries. A list like this could run into the thousands. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of workable criteria makes this just silly: based on the intro section just about anything qualifies, it doesn't specifically exclude student films, shorts, commercials, Youtube videos, or even home movies. Even if we make the common-sense assumption that it refers to theatrically-released feature films, it's still ludicrously broad: the vast majority of silent movies had budgets under 40K, as did many early talkies, B-movies, art films, foreign films, porn, documentaries, etc. That's solvable but the core issue of being trivia isn't solvable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's close as delete per WP:SNOW. Strongest consensus I've seen in a film-related AFD in a long time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design is Not a Matter of Taste, It's a Business[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No independent sources available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Part of a walled garden by SPAs (under investigation for sockpuppetry) whose sole intent has been to include this author's non-notable concepts on Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A self-published e-book with no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: No evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what has been said already. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, et al. Also, page creators banned as sock puppets. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:35, 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exponential Design Weight[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG, not discussed in WP:RS. Neologism sourced to one self-published book. Part of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN associated with Jacob Lindborg (also at AfD). Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up one day. Without any evidence of this invented concept having ever been used by anyone other than its creator in his single, apparently non-notable book, there is no place for such a term in the encyclopedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism and soapboxing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Also, page creators banned as sock puppets --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by sock puppets and is non notable neologism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:02, 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Lindborg[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or a specific guideline such as WP:AUTHOR. The subject appears to have one self-published book; I can find no third-party information in WP:RS about this book or of any of the concepts associated with the subject. The article appears to be part of a walled garden created by users (see contributions of the author of this article, User:Jessica M. Dreyfus, and also of User:TommFreemann) whose purpose is to add content about this author and the neologisms/concepts in his 2014 book. Kinu ^t/_c 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline speedyable given the lack of WP:RS third-party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails BIO/GNG, and created by a sock puppeteer to boot (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TommFreemann. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Kinu and Rhododendrites.Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woven Knowledge[edit]

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

Appears to be an unsourced essay. The origination of the term is given, but without any actual references, its notability is unclear, and the content reads as an original research piece that is a "how-to" on applying this concept in one's life. Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 16:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the related AfDs for Jacob Lindborg, Design is Not a Matter of Taste, It's a Business, and Exponential Design Weight. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up one day. Two editors (under investigation at WP:SPI) have been systematically creating articles about the concepts introduced by a single author in that author's single (and apparently non-notable) design text. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with the above, and I'll add that a gsearch for "'woven knowledge' lindborg" returns two hits: this Wikipedia article, and the Wikipedia article about his book. All other mentions of "woven knowledge" seem to be unrelated and diffuse. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: the page creator (of this and other Lindborg-related articles) was banned as a sock puppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TommFreemann). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:12, 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.

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learning at Home and in the Hospital - LeHo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. reason was "While not a copyright violation (the source is licenced for onward use) this is unsuitable as an article for the many reasons flagged at the head. In brief summary of this it is unreferenced WP:OR."

Since then the issues list has grown substantially. This needs to go, and go at AfD, in order to set a precedent against recreation of the same material. Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible that LeHo is notable, e.g., see [1] (and no, I don't know if this is a reliable source). However, the current incarnation of the article has got to go. Lacking any independent sources, it reads more like a sales brochure than anything else. Should someone like to actually find the requisite reliable sources, and then describe LeHo, more power to them. Until then, delete it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Draft:Home and Hospital Education (HHE) is waiting in the wings. It will not be approved by any WP:AFC review, but it is well to be aware that more of the same is waiting. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This actually now does contains copyright violations, as the source is licensed under CC-BY 4.0, and the Foundation Legal have determined that this license is not backwards compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Crow^Caw 22:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention anywhere of what the incompatibility might be. Any reference for that? It remains listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. Probably the difficulty is " Those who reproduce the work must attribute it in the manner specified by the author or licensor" (from Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0)/ This is likely to cause considerable confusion, as I suspect authors will pick this tag not realizing its different, and should be given the opportunity to correct it by relicensing. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Here was the section on Moonriddengirl's page about this (towards the bottom):[2]. Crow^Caw 22:34, 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. Fails WP:GNG. Article can be recreated if a translated version with appropriate referencing can be produced. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breno Masi[edit]

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

Just how notable is being the first person in Brazil to unlock an iPhone? I don't think it is, but I could be wrong. llywrch (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an achievement notable enough to have own page here. This is laughable. -A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 02:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The original author of the article created it one month ago, saying it is actively undergoing translation. They've done nothing since. I see no indication of notability -- just short lived, single event type coverage. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - not notable. Karlhard (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Portuguese Wikipedia article, from which this one was being translated, claims far more for the subject than this one currently does. Judging from the nomination and comments above supporting deletion, it seems that the nominator and at least some of the commenters haven't looked at it at all. My knowledge of Portuguese is almost non-existent but, with the help of Google Translate, I get the impression that the Portuguese Wikipedia article is distinctly over-promotional, and the list of references doesn't look inspiring. However, I am not in a position to judge them, and some at least might just support notability. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge of Portuguese than I have could look at the Portuguese sources and give an informed opinion. PWilkinson (talk) 12:03, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AEC Digital Solutions LLC[edit]

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

Article, created by a editor whose username closely corresponds to the name of a person mentioned in the article as a senior staffer in the company (hence conflict of interest), about a company with no properly sourced or substantiated evidence of encyclopedic notability. All of the sourcing here is to primary sources like the company's own website, its own self-penned profile on public relations databases and its own press releases, with not a shred of reliable source coverage anywhere in the references — and while the writing tone is relatively neutral, given that the article doesn't even really make a claim to passing WP:CORP it still ultimately functions as a promotional advertisement for the company rather than a proper encyclopedia article about it. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but companies aren't automatically entitled to keep articles on Wikipedia just because you can point to their own websites as proof that they exist. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by editor User:Shiv.bhusan about a firm one of whose key people is listed as one Shiv Bhushan Singh. Aside from a couple of reprinted press releases I am finding nothing about this firm, and nothing that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly the case of non notability. Mr RD 18:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, non notable at all. Karlhard (talk) 00:04, 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. WP:SK j⚛e decker ^talk 18:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Bike Race[edit]

Withdrawn by NOM --- KEEP

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

Delete along with Underwater Boxing and Underwater cycling. This one is a small, non-notable local fundraiser. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC) —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found multiple independent reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic, and added them as citations. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by NOM --- KEEP —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:55, 21 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-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater cycling[edit]

NOM WITHDRAWN: Keep withdraw nomination. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Similar to page on Underwater Boxing currently under AfD. Perhaps move this to Aqua Cycling and do a complete re-write. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC) —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete and the topic seems quite notable. Moving the topic and/or rewriting it would be ordinary editing not requiring deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I assumed the link provided to discussion on Underwater Boxing -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Underwater_Boxing implied reasons for deletion. This article is about Underwater bicycle racing, of which the notability is not apparent. The references are not about racing. The article is written such that it is promotional for "The Underwater Bike Race is an annual charity fundraiser held in North Carolina." None of the references are about racing. So in terms of cleanup, do we just delete the lede and need to start a whole new article? I've seen other AfD discussions that end in delete if the article is written about an entirely different topic, under a given namespace. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addt'l comment: If I am clearly mistaken, please close discussion as Keep and withdraw nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Most of the sources refer to it as underwater cycling. Article content can be addressed by copy editing it. Source examples include:

"Man breaks underwater cycling record". The Telegraph.
"Spotlight on Aqua Studio: The Country's First Underwater Cycling Destination". Vogue.
"Russians attempt underwater cycling". The Telegraph.
"Southampton underwater record attempt 'too dangerous' to continue". BBC News.
"Underwater Cycling World Record Broken By Two Ex-Royal Marines At Southampton Boat Show". Huffington Post.
"We Tried Underwater Cycling, The Latest Exercise Craze In New York City". Houston Chronicle.
"Aqua cycling: A new underwater workout". Fox News.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 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) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wu[edit]

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

Fails to establish her personal notability. As far as I can tell, she is mostly known for the Revolution 60 mobile game she co-developed and the supposed death threats she recently received over GamerGate-related tweets. Don Cuan (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The WP:VG/RS articles that mention her are primarily about Giant Spacekat or Revolution 60. There are a variety of worthwhile mentions that cite her on her authority as a game designer: [3][4][5] and at least one related to sexism in the industry: [6]. The CNET source used in the article is more about the game or the company than about her. (This said, the game has enough reviews from reliable sources to warrant its own article.) I'm putting this here now in advance of what will inevitably be a shitstorm proxy war (note to those new to Wikipedia, canvassing is not allowed, articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), and the result will be based on consensus, not counting !votes): the article topic has demonstrated notability through significant coverage as an industry figure, even though Wu does not have any articles (from secondary, vetted sources) dedicated to her career. Giant Spacekat (the company) is synonymous with Wu (sometimes with her name in place of the company), but should redirect to her article as she has vastly more coverage than the company as an entity. If the series of mentions of her work is considered too weak, the only other feasible option would be redirecting her article to Revolution 60, but even that would be to discount all the mentions of her as an industry figure, including the recent, full articles (from reliable, secondary, independent sources) about the threats mentioned in the nomination. czar ♔ 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All the links you provided only cover her tangentially. She is mentioned as part of a panel, as well as among about a dozen of other game developers, designers etc. in the Gamasutra article. (While I know that other stuff doesn't exist isn't a deletion argument in itself, I might add that only one of them has an article himself.) Similar for the Polygon article on checkpoints. I simply don't see her individual notability outside of that one, recent event that probably also motivated starting the article. For which most of the sources I've read so far seem to be little more than a digest of her own Twitter posts.

I do agree that Revolution 60 potentially warrants an article. But unless this is the only major game Miss Wu is going to make, we shouldn't use her name as a redirect to it.Don Cuan (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made it clear that almost all of the links are mentions and not in-depth articles. (Then I made a case for why Wu nonetheless had sigcov as an industry reference if not for the depth of articles about her.) The rest is interpretation. I've written about indie games for several months here now—it's totally normal to redirect a creator's name to their creation, especially if it's a worthwhile search term. Due to this alone, this discussion would have been better off on the article's talk page since deletion isn't actually on the table. czar ♔ 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did make that clear they are not in-depth. But I disputed that these articles constitute significant coverage of her, because frankly… they simply don't. They are little more than trivial mentions. You can't just deduce that she is an important industry figure because two articles used a few quotes from her. And if I hadn't taken this here, it wouldn't have gotten the same attention. Don Cuan (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator, for essentially the reasons evoked by Czar above. Wu is the focus of much gaming press coverage because of the recent threats she received, and I figured a brief article would be interesting to readers because of that. While the threats alone would be a case of WP:BLP1E, the coverage she (and her company, which are to a degree interchangeable, as well as her game) received previously make her (together with her company and game) meet our inclusion requirements (WP:N). Like Czar, I believe that an article about her as a person provides the best scope for coverage of her game and company as well, at least initially until somebody writes an article about the game, which has probably enough coverage for an article of its own as well. Sandstein 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. For much of what Czar has to say. It appears that she is also notable for being a frequent contributor of articles on feminism and gaming. This could be a single event topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can tell. What concerns me the most is that the article was nominated for deletion within a day of being created. There was no talk discussion and the article doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion. Edit Ferret (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being - I'd redirect the article to Revolution 60 as soon as the game article exists. Instead of an article on a notable work, we get what amounts to another Gamergate NOTNEWS BLP1E distraction. - hahnch e n 01:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there's no point in delaying the inevitable. Technically, BLP1E does not apply since she appears to be extremely self-promotional for someone who is supposed to be in hiding. It only applies to low-profile individuals who aren't rushing to get their faces in front of as many cameras as possible.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see giving her extensive mention in the Gamergate controversy article, but that's hardly "delaying the inevitable" unless we're going to start covering others involved in the whole fracas.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's gotten lots of media coverage, as noted above. Disclosure: I met her husband, Frank Wu, and got his autograph, at a con in Boston. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as written it reads too much like a resume and self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.211.130 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current form was largely written by Elonka, who I'm reasonably certain is not Brianna Wu. Feel free to suggest improvements on the talk page. Sandstein 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I am not Brianna Wu, and to my knowledge have never met her. Any and all established Wikipedia editors are welcome to edit the article, too. For newer editors who may be prevented from editing the article at the moment, constructive suggestions for specific improvements to the article are welcome, and as Sandstein mentioned, the best place to post them is at Talk:Brianna Wu. --El on ka 13:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I guess I'm going against the trend, but I'm going to have to go with one event here. Looking through the sources, of the significant ones almost all are about her in relation to the death threats through GamerGate. (One predates the death threats, but is still related to sexual harassment and GamerGate). Most of the sources aren't reliable, or are predominately about the company she cofounded or the game they developed - perhaps enough to warrant an article on the company, but I'm not convinced that there's enough to warrant an article about her. - Bilby (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Most of the best sources seem related to GamerGate, but there look to be sufficient coverage about her and her other work to keep. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited sources suffice to meet WP:GNG and skate by WP:BLP1E. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has nothing to do with the article and is simply an attack against the subject of the page. I notice the GamerGate page also includes mention of their association with misogyny and anti-feminism, yet no attempts have been made to delete it. This conversation never should have begun. Tpstigers (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No germane arguments have been made for deletion of this article. It meets all community requirements for notability and biographies of living persons. --Locriani (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The nominator fails to advance arguments for deleting the article, and in fact sets out why she is notable. (If she wasn't before the recent harassment incidents, which is debatable, she certainly is now.) Robofish (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've had articles deleted of people who have done more, and the article feels more like a hagiograph than a standard Wiki entry. As Bilby says, there's more than enough to discuss the company, with her entry redirected to that, but unless she's been at multiple companies putting multiple games in, I'll have to say no. The death threats may be tragic, but if that's the sole validator, we'd probably use up the world's bandwidth on everyone who ever met that description.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 21:52, 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. Wizardman 16:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polin Trinidad[edit]

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player. Has not played in 3 years, never reached the majors. Coverage is all routine. Spanneraol (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing of note here. I'm usually willing to be a little more generous with people who spent considerable time at Triple-A, but he didn't, so... Alex (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I want to keep him reflexively, because he participated in the All-Star Futures Game. That doesn't mean he's notable without any doubt, but I tend to have a soft spot for ASFG participants. This is the best piece of coverage I can find, but as yet I can't find any more, so I'll have to vote delete unless more turns up. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others.--Yankees10 17:40, 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.

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn's Concerto (South Korean TV series)[edit]

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

Looking over this-trying to find any info about this show and none so far, with no refs either. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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 03:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No refs to support that this is actually real, fail WP:N. Could even be a hoax or a wish of an overzealous fan. --Michaela den (talk) 03:06, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't wanna rain on your parade, but just searching for it in google shows me a youtube video of episode 1. Also IMBD and Dramawiki links. Also a few more results that were removed by DCMA. Second page gives reviews. From what I remember TV shows are relevant when they are broadcast. Someone just would need to find some reliable information on this. 188.95.26.178 (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion I just checked and what I found was for the Taiwanese series. I should drink more coffee. Sorry. 11:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)11:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(cannot into Korean) Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Does not find anything by name of drama + name of first listed actress (in Chinese). The kowp article on that timeslot (ko:JTBC 월화드라마) indicates that other dramas have filled through the remainder of the year (i.e. cannot find that combination of Hangul anywhere). And I am calling it the best I can do here. Come back when we have a definitive scheduled broadcast? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Addendum 12:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshman Narayan[edit]

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

I was about to put a prod for this, but then I realized that this is a way too soon case so a AFD instead. Wgolf (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two notable films and a likelihood of a further career in films. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-A likelihood in a career in films is not quite a keep (that still goes under too soon quite a bit) Wgolf (talk) 16:20, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls in WP:TOOSOON category. Athachil (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few articles on the internet which are notable. Maybe he is a rising performer, but still has some time before he becomes popular. If he has done a lot of work, then we need more sources. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 23:48, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental winners[edit]

AfDs for this topic:

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

Bundling these very similar pages on same non-notable pageant for deletion. The parent page, Miss Intercontinental is currently up for deletion discussion, and these related pages are essentially offshoots/forms/etc on the same topic. Sourcing is universally primary/nonexistent/non-reliable. The creating editors almost universally seem to be single-purpose accounts (suggesting conflict of interest/promotional edits). On the 1986-92 page we actually see: "These were not extensively publicized, and data and photographs are scarce or not available." (So not notable, even then?) Mabalu (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

I'm leaving Miss Intercontinental India and Miss Intercontinental 2014 out of this for now as although they are both pretty bad , they still have a lot more info in them and in 2014's case, tons of (almost all worthless) cites and references so seeing how this goes for now - they may merit individual discussion in a way that the above bundled articles don't seem to do. Mabalu (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as unsupported by reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental has just been brought to my notice and shows that the mother article for these articles was pretty categorically deleted (a snow delete, even) in the past. Mabalu (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the recent AFD for Miss Intercontinental was closed as delete. Mabalu (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 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 merge to Kirar Thakur. No consensus to delete after two relistings - there is some referenced content hence merge as an alternative to deletion Philg88 ^♦talk 05:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirar[edit]

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

There are two articles named Kirar and Kirar Thakur for the same subject on wiki, and this one is poorly sourced/nearly unsourced and exhibits most of the unreliable information in an advertising tone. Mahensingha 13:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:There are two articles named Kirar and Kirar Thakur for the same subject on wiki, and this one is poorly sourced/nearly unsourced and exhibits most of the unreliable information in an advertising tone. --Mahensingha 12:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 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. Content is primarily original research Philg88 ^♦talk 05:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PANCE / PANRE Blueprint (comprehensive content)[edit]

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

Not a clue why this article is here. It is a copy and paste copy of Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam (including the tagging). It looks like a mix of promo and WP:OR. The Banner talk 10:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: linkspam for the youtube channel/blog in the last paragraph.Lemnaminor (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a case could be made for seeing this as an expansion of the other, but i'm not convinced that such a listing of exam contents would be beneficial ~ and, in any case, the other could be expanded itself, so delete. As a side point, i've already removed the most egregious of the advertising mentioned by Lemnaminor. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge should be free!!!! There are dozens of books, manuals, and websites that make you pay for the PANCE BLUEPRINT content. All I have done in making this article is reproduce the content area topics and link them to the already existing wiki articles. As far as including useful links: it's important to use actual questions. So I've given the reader some knowledge about where to find them. As far as linking to one YouTube channel (that was in the reference section, and the channel is strictly educational.). it really doesn't have anything to do with the article. And I challenge anyone to identify an S2 split from an Opening Snap without hearing the difference. Something that PA's need to do, and can't learn from this article. Maybe another article would be more appropriate for that content since it doesn't directly relate to the exams. But for now, I'll leave it as a subsection. To repeat, this is just the PANCE BLUEPRINT with links to the actual content. This is knowledge that thousands of PA's each spend hundreds of dollars every year to acquire. Just check Amazon for all the books available. It should be free! We already spend enough on school. It should also be open sourced! [[[UWPA2013]]]

Delete The article is not very encyclopedic, and is mostly just a collection of links. ȸ (talk) 01:54, 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 no consensus. While many of the keep votes are extraordinarily weak, there is still a lack of consensus at this time. Dennis 2¢ 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Raut[edit]

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

A model/actress that basically falls under too soon. As for the reality show part-not sure how to handle that part. (I've seen people up for AFD for stuff like American Idol though even so yeah) Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Oh just looked up the page creator-a sockpuppet person! Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable actress with two substantive roles under her belt, in The Xpose and Bigg Boss, passing the WP:ACTOR test, plus she was a calendar model, and there are numerous reliable sources suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Another thing: check out the huge pageview tallies; of course pageview counts is not a formal reason for keeping but in my view exposure this huge rarely correlates with deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- we only count coverage in reliable sources and bollywoodlife is not one, and we only consider significant coverage about the subject, not passing mentions in warmed over promotional PR releases for programme/manufactured promotional "scandal" articles.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- comment-Also she has a not inherited issue. She is still too soon imo. Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywoodlife is a reliable source for articles about Indian movie stars and such, which is why it has been referenced hundreds of times in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a celebrity gossip site with no reputation for fact checking accuracy or editorial oversight. Why has it been used in far too many articles? Because people think that any link is suitable as a source and no one has bothered to clean it up yet. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article that is intended to create notability. She's had a role in a Bollywood movie (with this article claiming that she starred in it, and the article about the movie saying it was a supporting role, that got killed off early in the film). Apart from that her only claim to fame is to have been quickly evicted from Bigg Boss 8, the Indian copy of Big Brother, with most of the article telling us some juicy gossips about what happened before she entered the show, and reactions in the press after she was evicted (since she was allowed to remain in the house only for a very short time I guess there wasn't much to report from the house), with some of the gossips sourced to a gossip site on the 'Net. And, last but not least, she has a sister who is a model. Which, since WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources and WP:NACTOR requires "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", means total fail when it comes to notability. Thomas.W ^talk 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just noting that Thomas.W tried to remove sources during the deletion discussion, clearly reliable ones such as India Today and Hindustan Times. The claim that Wikipedia is creating her notability is laughably dubious; Raut has arrived as a major Bollywood presence, like it or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you on my talk page I was reverting a block evading troll, and the material I reverted was WP:Fancruft, and fancruft is fancruft no matter what it's sourced to. But I guess I should thank you for telling me on my talk page that the article was up for deletion (which I didn't know since there's no way to tell from the diff I was reverting from), that comment is what brought me here. AfD-discussions aren't a vote, BTW, the fate of the article is decided by a discussion based on policy, so your superlatives and peacockery has very little impact on it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appearance in the reality show Bigg Boss may or may not help her meet notability criterIa, but the role in the film Xpose does. Incidentally I have seen the film, and her role was a major role. She was one of the two main female characters. Also, Bigg Boss happens to be the most watched reality tv show in India, and heavily popular. In Bigg Boss, usually the participants are TV actors or wannabe movie actors etc (they are not entirely unknown people). So, participating in it also may be notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayan about big boss-well American Idol is the biggest reality show in the US and people get tagged for that. Also the film role major or not does not always meet criteria. Wgolf (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another indication that Raut isn't a "wannabe movie actor" is getting 10,000 pageviews each day, another sign that her fame is not due to a Wikipedia article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ITSPOPULAR and then come back with a rationale that actually carries weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 9 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! 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has claimed her success In india initially gaining success Kingfisher and modelling. Afer appearing on a movie with big banner in India she was introduced to industry and lately her appearance on Biggboss makes her eligible to have a wiki page. On google count 637,000. Daan0001 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:GHITS - we only care about significant coverage of the subject by reliably published sources. Please specifically show where that has happened. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin please note that TRPoD removed referenced information about this actor. I think it should be a general rule that when an article is up for deletion, people arguing for deletion should not remove references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Also note that user ThomasW also removed referenced information from a reliable source Times of India.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Times of India said Raut is returning to the show -- not a "rumor or speculation".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag, so we don't add speculations and unsubstantiated rumours, which is what both TRPoD and I removed. Thomas.W ^talk 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the source presented here by @Tomwsulcer: was not in the article when the material was removed, so his post here, criticising TRPoD and me for removing it, is grossly misleading. Thomas.W ^talk 11:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I added the line about Raut returning to the show with a reference here and this information has subsequently been undone twice by contributors arguing for deletion. Seems unfair to be both (1) arguing/voting for deletion and (2) removing referenced information at the same time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC) And the Times of India is not a gossip rag printing "rumors"; fact is, Raut is returning to the show. Period.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Event the most reliable source is not always reliable. The "story" is merely part of the ginned up "controversy" that serves as free publicity for a show based on manufactured scandals . The content is not actually about Raut at all, other than as she is letting herself be used as a pawn in this promotional publicity stunt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense squared. It is your original research that Raut is a "pawn" in a "ginned up" controversy as "free publicity"; simply put, Raut is returning to the show.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:53, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are significant coverage in reliable sources which ultimately makes the subject notable . — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has just acted in one low grade Hindi movie and in a reality show. This fails WP:NACTOR. There are some strict notability guidelines to have Wikipedia articles for individuals. We cant have wikipedia articles for every actors in Hindi film industry. I also suggest to revisit the pages created for every contestants of Big Boss to keep the standard and quality of Wikipedia. Athachil (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree she fails the actor test which says has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and she meets it with two roles in the The Xposé (a major Indian movie) plus the hit TV reality show Bigg Boss. Further, the NACTOR test says has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following which is confirmed by having over 200,000+ pageviews in 90 days. She clearly meets WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 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 redirect to Jerusalem (1996 film). No consensus to delete after two relistings. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Beinö[edit]

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

Article has been around for a while with not much to add. Has only had one role and that is it. I think either a delete or a redirect would be the best. Wgolf (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although he was not the star of the film, contrary to the claim in the article, redirect to Jerusalem (1996 film). --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 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! 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - he has had one role. the article is in bad shape but not really a reason for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has just had one small role. bbx (talk) 03:31, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 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 redirect to Lara Spencer. (non-admin closure) IPadPerson (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flea Market Flip[edit]

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

Completely outdated, fails notability guidelines for television articles, and no secondary sources. Anyone is welcome to give their input on this. IPadPerson (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – To Lara Spencer until show develops its own notability. ShoesssS ^Talk

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. Bring it back if it ever develops notability. --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mamta Kaash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON as non-notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 02:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as hugely improved since nomination, Notability has indeed been established. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress who has appeared on multiple television shows in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s -- seems like enough to me. Famous? Perhaps not. More of a bit player. But notable, given that she's been a bit player for 20 years on major UK programs? Yeah, that's enough to me. Also appears in at least one source with some detail about her work: [7] TheOther Bob 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should respond to the arguments put forward below. First, WP:NACTOR says that a person is notable if they have appeared in significant roles in multiple notable television series. This actor has appeared on 28 episodes of Casualty_(TV_series) and 33 episodes of Angels_(TV_series) -- both significant roles, and both notable television shows. That's sufficient to meet that criteria. As to WP:TOOSOON, we're talking about someone who was active in British television from 1982 to 2005. This isn't someone's buddy who's trying to break into the industry and might be famous someday... Moreover, my view is that this sort of deletion ultimately damages the project by injecting biases towards topics that Wikipedians like -- and deleting topics that Wikipedians don't find as interesting. Sure, British medical dramas aren't a hot topic on Wikipedia, and they aren't something we know well -- but if someone has an interest in British medical dramas, this actress is a significant part of that history. Why we would delete that type of information -- particularly under the apparently-mistaken belief that 1982-2005 is "too soon" -- is baffling to me. TheOther Bob 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best it's WP:TOOSOON, at worst fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. In either case, delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:37, 28 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]

Keep Notable actor at the time she was most active – this at a time when (I'm ashamed to say) there were not too many Asian actors in good roles on British TV – and she was a serious player on Casualty (BBC 1 Saturday night prime time hospital drama) [8]. Gets a mention in the Encyclopaedia of TV [9], has a listing at the British Film Institute [10], a review in The Independent (national paper) for a play at The Royal Court theatre [11], and on the British Council website [12]. Her Cannes award – albeit ancient history – made New York magazine [13]. This certainly isn't WP:TOOSOON – more like an insufficiency of internet sources due to the era in which she was most active. I'm going to take a look at newspaper archives the old fashioned way as I'm sure there are more resources on her. She's notable enough for a stub at very least. Libby norman (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a few more references and details to the article. Libby norman (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appeared in a major, regular role in two very significant primetime British TV shows (including the world's longest-running emergency medical drama series, which is also still one of the most watched programmes on British TV). Looks notable enough to me. No justification at all for WP:TOOSOON, given she's fifty and those two major roles were in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established, based especially on Libby norman's fine sourcing work. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have update the article with infobox. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After doing deep online search I discovered that the person is notable and have won various notable awards which makes her ultimately notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:20, 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 Education in the United States. No consensus to delete after two relistings Philg88 ^♦talk 05:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safety school[edit]

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

Page is simply a definition of a vague class of schools, doesn't seem to be notable. No sources are cited or examples given. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational, and could be made more encyclopedic with a bit of expansion from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:18, 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]

Delete - as failing WP:GNG. I am unconvinced that this is a valid concept. The article is unsourced and the only sources that I can find match the fall-back school concept as defined in the Wiktionary link. Certainly the words 'Safety School' appear in some organisations' titles eg Motorcycle Safety School but these are a subset of the topic (in this case motorcycle training) rather than being a subset of a safety school genre. Most importantly, because reliable sources do not appear to discuss 'safety school' as a generic type of organisation we are not able to write an adequately sourced page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This page is a plausible redirect to College application or College admissions in the United States, and is, therefore, not elligible for deletion (WP:R). This page was originally about the other type of safety school: see the first revision. There is likely to be mergeable content in the page history (WP:PRESERVE). If content has already been merged, the page history will have to be retained anyway for copyright attribution reasons (WP:CWW). James500 (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in the United States where the term is mentioned. James500 makes a fair point about the merit of a redirect. This was actually an early redirect target for this subject. There is nothing sourced so nothing is mergeable but I have added a source at the target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 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 redirect to WCIA. Consensus is to merge to WCIA. I'm pushing the redirect button since the merger has occurred. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Benton (anchorman)[edit]

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

No actual notability: coverage because of the pathos is a violation of NOTNEWS DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to WCIA: A locally-visible person, without Wikipedia notability, then coming down with a fatal condition, does not make the subject cross into Wikipedia notability. To be fair: I haven't dug for more sources much. But the current article and sources are shallow on notability: fluff about how the "announcement went viral" (Doesn't everything these days?) and sourcing from a rewrite from Australia that repeatedly says "Chicago", which isn't even the same media market and generally can't receive this TV station. --Closeapple (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WCIA: As the author of the article, I understand how he might not be notable based on this one announcement. The announcement, however, was notable for WCIA and it makes sense to merge this Wikipedia or pieces from it onto their Wikipedia page. ReachingtheStars (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to WCIA. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've already merged relevant content to WCIA here and included it after the 2012 cancer death of their Chief Meteorologist, Robert Reese. Someone might want to check out Category:American television news anchors It has dozens of similar, local level anchors, like Dave Benton. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I changed my !vote above to Redirect. Of note is that content was merged to WCIA from the article per the diff in the above !vote. A redirect could be performed, to retain the Revision history for proper attribution purposes per copyright requirements (see WP:ATTREQ). If deletion is to occur, performing a WP:HISTMERGE prior to deletion will be necessary per copyright requirements. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The topic passes WP:GNG, with coverage shown on the other side of the world. "Actual notability" is not a policy-based argument, nor is it clear that WP:NOTNEWS has any relevance given the argument that this is a wp:prominent topic for WCIA. See also, WP:MAD (Merge And Delete). Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 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 04:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reshma Rathore[edit]

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

Been trying to find something notable about her. Now maybe the award is-not sure how notable it is though. For now it just seems too soon. (and the links are unreliable or just stuff like "I am her biggest fan!") Wgolf (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:27, 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]

Keep. Source here and here and here meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO write ups in few online articles are not enough to keep the page. Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER. Athachil (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:37, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert L. Rosedale[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage found and relatively low number passing references found. Tgeairn (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Obits http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=900005396201/Obituary-Herbert-L-Rosedale?slreturn=20140911182649 and http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/nr.2004.7.3.127?uid=3738776&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104892968273 Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Eight years after its creation the article is still no more than a stub - just 4 sentences! DaveApter (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lawyer having an obit in a law journal does not confer notability. Nor does contributing to a book - there is no indication what the contribution was. The burden of persuasion is on those who claim notability to show it, they have fallen quite short. Fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real assertion of notability. He wrote a few articles and gave a few talks is all the article says. Borock (talk) 01:27, 21 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 (consult) @ 19:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Knox (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable executive. No indication of significance to the wider community, independent of the companies themselves. LS1979 (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have since expanded the page, which now includes his appearance in a newspaper article listing him as one of South Australia's most influential people. Also added a section re: salary controversy and another showing membership of various organisations, boards etc. More to come... I may have launched the page prematurely but I hope I can justify its existence. Danimations (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I can't seem to find a WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE guideline, he is a long-term CEO of an ASX 50 company, so I would think some form of assumed notability would apply. Basic google searches are difficult to find specific features on him due to the many quotes of him in his capacity as CEO, but articles like these from The Age, Adelaide Now and SMH are about him as much as the company. The-Pope (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for much the same reasons as The-Pope. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:05, 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.

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jock O'Connell[edit]

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

This WP:RESUME does not meet notability criteria in my eyes. bender235 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 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 redirect to Axis: Bold as Love. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EXP (song)[edit]

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

Not only does this article say nothing that the Axis: Bold as Love page doesn't already address, but it's a sentence long and basically just reiterate's the song's existence. There's no foreseen chance of expansion to this article either. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's a two-minute novelty track with sound effects. It is not discussed sufficiently in all the many Hendrix biographies to ever provide enough material for more than a stub-class article (the same applies to "Peace in Mississippi", "My Friend (Jimi Hendrix song)", "Lover Man (Jimi Hendrix song)", and "You Got Me Floatin'"). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be against deleting the articles for "My Friend (Jimi Hendrix song)", "Lover Man (Jimi Hendrix song)", and "You Got Me Floatin'" either honestly. "Peace in Mississippi" has plenty of refs though, so I'd keep that for sure. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that. I'm more interested in articles with potential, rather than rescuing perma-stubs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 21 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 23:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Axis: Bold as Love, simply not sufficient coverage for a standalone page. No comment on the other songs mentioned in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 01:27, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Axis: Bold as Love. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The discussion at this time is split between deletion and redirection. Relisting a third time to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nspluginwrapper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor piece of software that does not meet WP:NSOFT. At the previous nomination, Cerlyn pointed out an article on linux.com that could be cited and documentation at mozdev.org; however, I am not convinced that these together establish nspluginwrapper as "significant in its particular field". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent references, fails WP:V along with WP:N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not sure that either of the two sources mentioned in the nomination are sufficient. The mozdev one is an unfinished bit of online-only documentation, and so probably isn't a reliable source. the Linux.com article might be reliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Linux.com), and it's certainly in-depth, though by itself it doesn't establish notability. Are there any other independent sources which cover this software in detail? If so I would consider changing my !vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Milton[edit]

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

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

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

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

Note: Several comments have been posted here by CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppets of Dope99, the creator of the article. I am striking all but the first of these sockpuppet comments. Dope99 is free to make a single "keep" comment, although the fact that he/she chose to use a second account to do so is dubious, but using subsequent accounts to post further "keeps" is unambiguous abuse of multiple accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, a non-notable musician who has won non-notable awards. Stanleytux (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously as an Artist with a University degree he is an Inspiration to the youths of his society -- Proftalk (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Proftalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Proftalk is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Dope99. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's certainly overly promotional at present, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. it could be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view -- Chieffo (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Chieffo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Chieffo is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Dope99. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I must commend, The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, but that does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the Boston Globe an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower.Justblaze54 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Justblaze54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The comment above has been copied wholesale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Hunter and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this debate. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one, to me anyway! It really is an exact copy of something another editor wrote elsewhere: [14] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justblaze54 is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Dope99. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any notability at all based on the current content. No record contract, two student awards of unknown notability for something musical, one self-released single of unknown notability, millions get BSc's. Kick his tush and Tush Award out of Wikipedia until he does something notable! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, WP:BAND. Ya got to wonder why the SPAs bother. Nha Trang 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Delete: Wikipedia policy oriented Comments: Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC and all other policies I can think of at this moment.

Non-Wikipedia guidelines related Comments - Rubbish article. Everybody wants to sha sing in Nigeria. Someone should please tell these Covenant Kids to go find a cure for Ebola if they want to be notable on Wikipedia. What does the future hold for Nigeria if everyone is going into entertainment? Useless article. Yes I'm angry.

Note: Amadioha will strike anyone that replies me. "runs-away forever".Darreg (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Darreg no vex ooo! No be this boys fault, na naija Oo

Strong delete: The article is a mess! Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG. No evidence of meeting any notability criteria. Wikicology (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: are you kidding me? "Tush Awards"? "Ping Naija All Youth Awards"? ah! you go fear awards na. Fails WP:GNG.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, as has been noted. Quis separabit? 02:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 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. The keep arguments seem to be a matter of fan appeal., and I have discounted them. I think we'd need more substantial ccomplishments to justify an article DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Adivarekar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Priya Adivarekar

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

A person should do something notable to be in wikipedia. Dubbed for some Hindi movies does not qualify one to be listed in biaography sectio. Athachil (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)— Athachil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NACTOR--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here is problematic, leaving this article short of WP:BASIC. Additional reliable sources welcomed, of course. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~I recommend to check and restyle the article in proper way~~ Scottwin (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: struck comment of confirmed sock puppet above, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Discussion here. Using this search string, it is clear she's written numerous articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be she has written some blogs and some articles for online editions of few Indian news papers. But does that qualify her to have a page in Wikipedia biographical section? Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER --athachil

Keep She is a popular entertainment journalist and dancer. Voice acting in such big films is just a cherry on the top. A young age to achieve all of this -- Thomas670 01:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)— Thomas670 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Disagree. The profile has relevant information for the entertainment industry of India. She is a popular blogger who is closely followed by my daughter and her friends here in Turkey. I'll vote to keep this profile as it is. -- Khanabbasani 11:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)— Khanabbasani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am of the view that this profile should be kept. Priya is a well known journalist with the Indian Express. She owns a website, has a team working for her and just doesn't randomly write blogs. Looking at her vast experience in the field of voice overs and other domains, I think she meets the Wikipedia criteria quite well. -- JayaJainesh 11:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)— JayaJainesh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep If one can have a page dedicated to Rakhi Sawant and the likes, who have been controversial, this girl does deserve this space. She is a multi talented young girl, whose details can serve as a inspiration to other youngsters. Do not delete! -- dhwanikaxoxo— dhwanikaxoxo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Firstly, please get your spellings right, Mr. Athachil. Secondly, I strongly believe this page DESERVES TO STAY. Maybe the fact that she has dubbed (it is voice acting, btw) for 'some' (they are all prestigious films duh!) films does not qualify for you, but there are other artists who don't deserve to be on Wikipedia either. At least the girl on this profile has done several things. She is a known face on the internet and in print, social media too. -- JennaRode 04:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)— JennaRode (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep based on comments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no harm in keeping, add a picture maybe though... EoRdE6 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better to keep. Multi-talented girl who is quite popular on social media and has done great amount of work as both a journalist and dubbing artist. Agree with EoRd, need a photograph. Can be taken from her website I guess. -- AdityapSingh 01:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)— AdityapSingh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. We have two keeps above from genuine users and six from users who registered yesterday, created user pages (all looking the same) and went straight here to vote. These six are either socks, or canvassed from an external site.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't know the others, but this one is a genuine account, bro! No offence. I am working on editing various pages and contributing as part of a project. If we go by that logic, even the nominee has a page similar to mine.--AdityapSingh (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody can easily check that when I have written my comment, you only had two edits: Creating your own user page and voting keep here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made myself very clear in the statement above. Would not like to argue unnecessarily on a public platform. Moreover, everyone is quite mature enough to know that no wiki page is saved because of votes. It is just a debate page. Thanks. --AdityapSingh (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting due to the potential of sockpuppetry biasing the discussion. I have also struck the comment of a confirmed sock puppet in the discussion. Of note is that several !votes are from WP:SPAs or near-SPAs: User:Khanabbasani, User:Dhwanikaxoxo, User:JennaRode, User:AdityapSingh.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While going through random biographies I noticed this article and felt that this page is not fit to be here. Revision as of 14:44, 27 September 2014 felt like a facebook profile with following wordings which I felt like misuse of Wikipedia to create publicity. "Her personal likes include Dancing, Music, Books, Movies, Shopping, Writing, Photography", "When she's not busy doing work, she loves to capture scenic locations with her camera. She also loves to re-read her favourite books, or simply, dance while listening to music on her iPod.", "she happens to like Bollywood actor Shahid Kapoor."

Now the article is updated with lot of information and corrections. But I found few of them are baseless. Claim 1: "This she did with a group of girl instructors, with an aim to spread the knowledge of different dance forms among several people". But the reference page does not exist. Claim 2: "She has won dance reality shows like Boogie Woogie on Sony Entertainment Television". But the "Boogie Woogie (TV series)" page does not say her name as one of the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athachil (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After wasting 20 minutes I found no significant coverage in independent sources which can establish notability. As well this AfD discussion should be carefully examined due to great sense of sock puppetry (suggestion: @AdityapSingh, JennaRode, JayaJainesh, Khanabbasani, and Thomas670: which appears to be created for single purpose) and Afd canvassing. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may not be an expert here (and maybe that's why I have been called a 'sock') since I am still learning how to edit pages and work on my project simultaneously, I just came across this. Maybe it could help http://sdads.webs.com/aboutus.html http://sdads.webs.com/apps/videos/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7nr88LVuxM

Just trying to help, guys! No offence. --AdityapSingh (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:BASIC. Keep-votes don't add any reasonable justification for the article to not be deleted. Possibly, some sock/stealth canvassing going on here. Harsh (talk) 07:56, 21 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 an essay, arguments on AIRCRASH may appear to not have a policy grounding, but AIRCRASH's "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" is a clear nod to WP:LASTING at WP:EVENT, which is a guideline and is entirely applicable here, lending keep arguments based on changes to maintenance procedures, etc., additional weight. Similarly, while I am personally sympathetic to "sources should bei in the article", by policy, with limited exceptions, delete arguments must be based on sources which exist, not sources which are present within the article. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Flight 630[edit]

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

Contested PROD as "as this accident is considered serious by NTSB". Which is not the same as being notable in Wikipedia terms. This is an unremarkable incident, although a hull loss no casualties, article makes no claim to any notability. TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only was there a DC-10 hull loss which even the nom indicates, the NTSB issued modifications to DC-10 brakes and antiskid mechanisms and air filler valve bore inspection procedures.[15] The PROD contesting was justified, especially to those who adhere to WP:AIRCRASH. Also, why was this nominated for Speedy Deletion after only 21 minutes of the article's existence? [16] --Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though no fatalities recorded, a major accident as the NTSB issued modification requests to be fitted to all the landing gear and brakes mechanisms of all the DC-10/MD-10/KC-10 aircraft flying affecting approximately 200 planes, all passenger, freighter, and refueller tankers. This accident required a full investigation and more than 15 recommendations were made meaning it is a major incident. Also, on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents page, there is a criteria for airlines accidents. The crash of Flight 630 meets all the criteria except human fatalities (eg. "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.", and "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport") User:A340swazzen 10:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A340swazzen (talk • contribs)
Delete. - The article does not have any notable CONTENT asit does not mentionany aftermath / consequences!! When it does I might change my mind--Petebutt (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy WP:DEL-CONTENT and WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through regular editing it should not be deleted. As per the policy, place a {{cleanup}} or {{expert-subject}} tag on it if your opinion is that "current content is not notable."--Oakshade (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above does not address the basic problem of non-notability. The links in the articel refs that actually lead anywhere say nothing about design changes, merely a tightening of maintenance proceedure.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactement!! The3 case for keep has yet to be made--Petebutt (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AFD and WP:BEFORE explains: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non really relevant. The NTSB report does not back the claim that this is a ' serious incident' and states "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of the accident were 1) the first officer’s failure to properly apply crosswind landing techniques to align the airplane with the runway centerline and to properly arrest the airplane’s descent rate (flare) before the airplane touched down; and 2) the captain’s failure to adequately monitor the first officer’s performance and command or initiate corrective action during the final approach and landing". Hardly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely relevant. The NTSB ordering modifications to antiskid mechanisms and air filler valve bore inspection procedures most certainly indicates "resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes" as WP:AIRCRASH stipulates. And a complete hull loss after a crash landing is definitely a serious incident. Demanding the exact words "serious incident" in an NTSB report is just a made up red herring that has nothing to do with WP:GNG or WP:AIRCRASH. --Oakshade (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a red herring at all. The article says that the NTSB decribes it as a serious incident and this is an uncited statement. They also do no, so far as I can tell, say anything about this accident leading to design mods. Cites, please. The cite you give above does not explicitly link this incident to any design changes in the brakes.TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goes back to the original point. Per policy WP:DEL-CONTENT and WP:BEFORE, if an article can be changed by regular editing like a claim of a phrase affectation, then regular editing is in order, not deletion. I removed the offending sentence for you. My !vote stands.--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade and A340swazzen and the content at the end of the NTSB report [17] detailing the response to this incident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, covered by the sources cited in the article and by others: [18] and [19] and the NTSB, as noted above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication in the article that this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AFD and WP:BEFORE state: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 19:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) @ 19:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death Vomit[edit]

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

Sources do not establish notability, can find nothing that does. Notability tagged since september 2013. TheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on iTunes. The only Death Vomit on Amazon is a presumably unrelated Ukrainian band. Claimsworth (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:38, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparently an important player for many years now (since 1995!) in the Indonesian death metal scene as evidenced in this newspaper article covering the band. The article describes them as being important for the development of music in Indonesia and especially for the development of the metal scene in Indonesia. As this is not mainstream music (especially not in Indonesia) coverage and reviews mainly take place online: 1., 2. Perth, Australia tour review, 3. Indonesian newspaper, 4. Indonesian newspaper, 5., 6., 7., 8. Concerts in Malaysia, 9. on Sputnikmusic, 10.. In addition, this band receives a huge amount of coverage on (mainly Indonesian) blogs and such, which, although not officially recognised by WP:GNG as reliable sources, does indicate their notability within this non-mainstream music scene in Indonesia. - Takeaway (talk) 13:13, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Austin[edit]

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

I found no evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. His notability seems to be asserted as being Treasurer for the Society of North American Goldsmiths (perhaps worth a redirect there, nothing more). It also asserts that he is an author whose book sells several thousand a year - I think that would be more a claim that the book may meet WP:NBOOK rather than Austin meeting WP:AUTHOR. Created by WP:SPA in a promotional tone and has been tagged for notability for 6 years without resolution, which hopefully we can get in this AfD. Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 28 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 13:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:13, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rejuvenate the earth[edit]

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

Have found no reliable coverage online for this modern book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. BethNaught (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 28 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 13:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sources for this exist, except for facebook pages and the like. There is nothing in reliable independent sources. Reyk _YO! 01:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Goodwin[edit]

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

Notability not established - does not meet WP:NBOX. Never fought for a major title. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I wasn't even notified of this AfD. The WP:NBOX guideline isn't the only guideline for notability. There are obviously dozens and dozens of articles written about Goodwin. Even after his untimely death. A female fighter he trained won the Women's World Championship in Barbados in 2010. While he was trying out for the 1976 Olympic boxing team, he won his first 2 fights but withdrew because of a severe cut on his eye.Goodwin is definitely notable. Dave Dial (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to add, this seems like a bad faith nomination. You listed this at the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions? What does Mickey Goodwin have to do with martial arts? Just looking at the sources I provided on the page any editor can see Goodwin passes general notability, without even going to the WP:NBOX. The sources I listed here I didn't even include in the article. Instead of nominating the article for deletion, why don't you try to expand it? The article is obviously not a candidate for AfD. Dave Dial (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the source for the #5 raking in the Middleweight division listed below, here are other sources. June 7, 1981 - Goodwin ranked 6th in WBA Middle weight March 6, 1982 - Goodwin ranked 5th in WBA Middleweight May 17, 1981 - Goodwin ranked 4 Dave Dial (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Coverage is essentially due to his death. He fails to meet WP:NBOX--he never fought for a major title or was ranked in the top 10. Training a notable fighter does not make him notable (WP:NOTINHERITED and competing at an Olympic trial also doesn't show notability. Boxing is probably the original martial art so this is hardly a bad faith nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'll accept the sources given as showing he was ranked in the top 10 and hence meets WP:NBOX. Otherwise I don't believe notability has been shown.Mdtemp (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Coverage is due to his death? There are books and sources from 1975 to 1995, far before 'his death'. The only really his death is covered is because he was a notable person. Which meets WP:GNG. There is no doubt that the article subject meets GNG. Dave Dial (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me also add, the AfD is incorrect. I never heard of WP:NBOX, but I see it was introduced in 2011 by an ordinary editor. So how is it even a guideline? Was there an RfC? WP:GNG is definitely a guideline. Also, it looks like Goodwin was ranked #5 in the WBA Middleweight division in 1981, and I bet there are many more sources. Editors here are casting delete votes and bringing the article to AfD without even checking the sources. I found the #5 ranking from the search at the top of this page. Definitely a bad faith nomination and delete vote. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you haven't heard of WP:NSPORTS, which is where NBOX is found, does not mean it has no merit. As far as rankings go I searched those of Ring magazine, which I view as superior to those of the biased, and sometimes corrupt, individual boxing organizations--and I didn't find him. I've already debunked the previous sources you gave and of the 5 sources in the article--3 were triggered by his death, 1 is an article saying he's been dropped from a local fight card, and one consists of a couple of passing mentions. None of which show he meets GNG. If there's been bad faith at this AfD it's been by you.Mdtemp (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One, you haven't 'debunked' anything. And you are still getting the facts wrong. NBOX is a made up 'guideline' that only has merit for those that devote their time to AfD of sporting people. It never went through the process to be accepted by the community as a guideline, and in fact was introduced in 2011 without any discussion. The discussion on the Talk page afterwards was by a limited amount of editors with no notice for other editors. So in fact, NBOX might as well not even exist. It doesn't mean anything other than perhaps an essay. Also, Goodwin wasn't 'dropped' from a fight, he pulled out of the Middleweight Title fight because he broke his hand. Common sense should tell anyone that fighting in a Title fight one would be ranked in the top 10. Not to mention the SEVERAL sources I've provided stating for a fact he was ranked in the top 5. So there is no question about it. The reason the sources on the article are mostly concerning his death is because those are the most recent articles and easiest to find. When I saw there was no article on Goodwin, I decided to put one on the project. I'm not an article writer, so did the best I could. But it should be obvious to anyone that even did a half-assed search of Goodwin that he is notable and easily passes WP:GNG. Easily. So I take it the nominated and your delete vote were made without even a half-assed search. So that equals obvious bad fail. Obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would know half-assed since you obviously didn't read the article which says he was dropped from a "Super Show" fight in Detroit--it's not about his injury that prevented him from fighting Hagler. It also says he's never fought a ranked fighter so I have to wonder about the validity of those high rank claims. How do you get to be a top 5 fighter without ever fighting another ranked fighter? That's probably why he wasn't ranked by Ring magazine.Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck sakes, do you even read the articles, or are you purposely misrepresenting what they state? Goodwin was 'dropped' from a January 23rd Detroit 'super show' by his manager(Emanuel Steward) so he could train for the March 6th Hagler fight. And there is no question that Goodwin was ranked high by the WBA. I've provided several sources stating such. No question at all. There is something fishy going on here between you, the nominator of this AfD and some others. If you people want to continue to play the game, don't be surprised by a boomerang. Dave Dial (talk) 22:09, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dave Dial's sources establishing notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obnoxious conspiracy theories aside the found references showing top 10 WBA over several years meets WP:NBOX. It would be great if those references and the BoxRec (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=18038&cat=boxer) could be incorporated into the article. It is highly unusual for someone to consistently be in the Top 10 of a major organization and not have a title fight - that may reflect really bad luck or a weakness in the WBA ranking - but in either case it is a good hook for a better article.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He not only didn't have a title fight, he didn't fight another ranked fighter. I agree he meets NBOX, though not strongly. I've never taken this much abuse after agreeing with someone's vote.Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UGC 11066[edit]

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

Only notable for the supernova that occurred in it in 2005. Per WP:NASTRO, such passing mention in the papers that mention the supernova does not constitute significant coverage, and thus this article fails both WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:05, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Intoxicated Drivers[edit]

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

Minor awards. No evidence for the claimed significance DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 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, though referencing does need work (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makkal Mahatmyam[edit]

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

This article has one source, which is an online store. I searched for some reviews or discussion of the film by journalists and didn't find any. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This movie was released in 1992 when movie reviews were not done or available for Malayalam movies. May be we can remove the current reference link to "Maebag" website and can add IMDB link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athachil (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable, independent source. There's already an IMDb link in the external links section, which is where is should be. I found another movie article, Sargam (1992 film), which also lacked reliable sources, but I was able to find and add some, so there is information about better known 1992 films. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... WP:INDAFD tells us that pre-2000s Indian films are difficult to source because A) Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly and B) worse, most of Indian Newspaper archives do not even store content for before 2000 or so.

Do these issues make all pre-2000 Indian films somehow automatically non-notable? No.

Does it create work for modern Wikipedians? Yes.

Is needing work a reason to delete? No.

searches using WP:INDAFD:Makkal Mahatmyam Makkal Maahathmiam

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

It's true that a lack of on-line references or a lack of English references are not a reasons to delete. However, "article needs work" can be used as a rationale to keep any unsourced article. How will we know which ones are notable? How will we know that the information is accurate? WP:UNSOURCED states "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". At least a few minimum references should be found first, and then the article created. For example, when I made the article Toronto Light Opera Association, I didn't find any reviews on line. So, before creating the article I traveled to a city where there was a library with microfilm of the "Evening Telegram" newspaper (not indexed), and I found reviews and copied down the information. How long should an article remain unsourced? (Having said that, I concede that in this case the editors below are making an effort to find evidence of notability and may succeed where I failed.) —Anne Delong (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you that you chose to travel and find microfilm copies of what was not available to you online. As confirmed by a few reliable sources confirming its commercial re-airing decades later, my having a reasonable expectation that a 23 year old Malayalam film was written of in Malayalam sourcess does not also mean I am expected to learn Malayalam and then travel to India and then find hardcopy or microfilm sources for Indian newspapers not available online. I am not Indiana Jones (chuckle). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, MichaelQSchmidt; sorry if I seemed to be implying that. My thinking was that this film would be of most interest to those who already speak the language and live in the area where it would likely be screened or broadcast, and that someone there might visit a local library for hardcopy. My point was more that an editor should look for at least some evidence that a topic is notable first, before choosing to create an article about it, leaving other editors who may be far away such as yourself to find the sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That someone created a poor article in March of 2011 is sad, and his being blocked for not understanding copyright policy is even sadder... as he is now not around to defend his efforts nor learn to improve his edits. But WP:NEGLECT or being a WP:STUB are not deletion rationals, and I already suggested on October 16 that we should encourage assistance from Malayalam-reading editors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow this suitable stub to remain and be addressed by Malayalam-reading Wikipedians who may have access to hard-copy Malayalam language sources not available online. Verifiable commercial release more than 5 years after original release is an historic notability indicator under WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2... KeralaTV confirms this 1992 film had commercial airing June 22, 2011 at 9:00 AM (19 years after original release) and The Hindu tells us it re-aired commercially November 3 2013 on Asianet Plus at 10:00 AM... (22 years after original release). We can encourage experts in that language to assist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've taken the time to look this up, if the article is kept, maybe some mention of continued broadcast should be added to the article or at least to the talk page. The article has been here for several years already, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources I found showing it meeting WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2 should be added through regular editing. Sad that it has sat unattended, but WP:NEGLECT is not a deletion rationale. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 2 more references to the movie.Vaidyasr (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be databases like IMDb, which can be edited by anyone. Am I wrong about that? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited by anyone? No. That would be Wikipedia. And even if IMDB uses some "user-submitted" information, users cannot edit that database. IMDB relies on its own editorial staff to vet submissions and add or not depending upon the results of their vetting processes. Those other sources might be investigated before simply declaring them the same as actual user-edited sites such as Wikipedia or Facebook. Meeting WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2, the actual reliable sources I linked above should be added to source its latest airings, yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Its a notable movie from Malayalam movie industry, India. Another sources are added where 1) Obituary of an actor who acted in the movie Makkal Mahathmyam from Mathrubhumi news portal, 2) clearly mentions the broadcast of movie on TV channel Asianet Movies. Both are reliable sources which indicates the notability of movie. It is also in the List of Malayalam films of 1992.Jai98 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mentions found thus far are all trivial and do not address the subject in detail. While I'm sympathetic to those trying to find sources (and I'd have no objections to this text being placed in the "Draft" namespace while substantial sources are located), at the moment it's not verifiable in reliable sources, and thus it has to go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: Not to harp, but while SIGCOV is always delightful to have, for a decades-old non-English film its lack is not the final coffin nail... and it is verified by reliable sources as having commercial re-release more than 5 years after initial release so as to meet WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we can verify the film exists and that it's been shown on TV. We've got some directory entry stuff of somewhat questionable notability. I don't doubt that there is some better information out there on dead trees somewhere, but sources that we can't locate and verify from are as good as non-existent sources here. Yes, sources may exist. Go and find them, and then I'll even restore the article for you myself. But we shouldn't lower our verifiability standards for certain classes of article just because finding sources is hard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as per @MichaelQSchmidt:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:47, 23 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Boxing[edit]

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

Maybe someday? For now, fails WP:GNG because WP:Crystal. Only reference online is a single video from 1939. Amazon has a poster of Muhammad Ali training underwater, which is interesting, but not helpful. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Also meets several other deletion criteria. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedo delete G3. The event mentioned in the article is a work of comedy staged and edited for film, not a live recording of an authentic sports contest. The Empire Pool was a sports venue that had a pool but also hosted a number of dry sports. Thus, boxing at the Empire Pool, ba-dum tsh! A drastic rewrite to discuss underwater fisticuffs as a comedic device in film may clear the water, but as is, we may have no choice but to pull the plug and drain it out. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With extreme prejudice. Too obscure to be even considered notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article that lacks both sources and any indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:43, 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) Natg 19 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott Chinese products[edit]

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

It would be very possible to write a long, substantial and well-referenced article about the substantive reasons why campaigns are organized to boycott Chinese products — but that's not what this article, as written, is. Rather, it's just a stub which defines "boycott Chinese products" as a term, meaning a boycott of products that come from China (how enlightening and informative!), with unreferenced POV asides like "The main reason of boycotting is Chinese products have poor quality and fake." In this form, it doesn't even provide enough substance to escape being a simple WP:DICDEF — and for that matter, even if a keepable article were written about the topic, this is about a million miles away from being its correct title. I'd be happy to withdraw this if the article sees substantive improvement and a title change before closure, but if that can't happen promptly then it needs to be deleted per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, as we're much better off restarting from scratch than we are hanging onto it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I agree with the above, and it seems to be a very one-sided POV push. I'm sure some Chinese-made products "have poor quality and fake", but try telling that to all the Western producers who have their products made in China, like Apple for example. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "The main reason of boycotting is Chinese products have poor quality and fake. Many products are dangerous and harmful to human health", as it is not given as the reason in any of the sources - they are all talking of boycotts for political reasons. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been updated now with more sources and is looking a little better, so I'll strike my Delete recommendation. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is obviously notable with many different sources. Alphama (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand the scope and context. -Mardus (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this case shoud be closed. There is nothing to discuss anymore when the article meet the requirements. Alphama (talk) 16:20, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richter10[edit]

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

non-notable school event Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Subject is lacking significant coverage in 'multiple' secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore qualifies deletion for not meeting notability standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found in major Indian news publications, nor anything in the British press, nothing in general science publications. Not much pageview stats either (my unofficial measure). Overall, subject does not meet the WP:GNG as best as I can determine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not matching any of the notability criteria. No news coverage. Proposing for Speedy Delete. Athachil (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:RS and WP:FAILN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:43, 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. Wizardman 16:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Oliveros[edit]

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable, coverage seems routine. Alex (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 17 sources seems impressive on the surface, but these are WP:ROUTINE mentions that don't go in depth as required by WP:GNG. This isn't significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others.--Yankees10 17:35, 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.

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

The result was no consensus. There are sufficient sources to make it plausible the subject meets criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR or not, and there's no consensus as to whether it's the case. Thus, by neither policy nor headcount, nor their marriage, can a consensus be obtained. Wily D 16:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo Sogunro[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject fails WP:GNG; The references cited, despite being mostly unreliable, are links to articles he's written. None is focused on his person. Google didn't bring up relevant result on this subject either. Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons for opposing this deletion: 1. The subject is a known African author with three books published and of sufficient interest to an average African and Nigerian audience and discussed in reliable sources as indicated by cited references. 2. A google web search brings up about 32,600 results at the date of this entry contrary to the nominator's assertion. 3. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, Out of the 20 references cited, only one of these links to an article by the subject, others are from external sources including a BBC report, an AlJazeera report and an interview by Ebony Magazine. It is critical that an average African and world audience has access to critical information on modern contributors to African literature. --Redotec (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)— Shecrownlita (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I am a member of the Nigerian literary community and I think this page is culturally relevant. I have contributed to this page previously. The reasons provided for nominating its deletion are factually untrue. --GrimyMartin (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)— GrimyMartin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. This subject of this article has written for a number of notable newspapers in Nigeria. However, he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The accolades he has garnered are not notable. The books he has written are not notable because they do not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines to warrant a stand alone article. The amount of web search one gets doesn't translate to notability. Most of the webpages in the web search do not show notability. I suspect a case of sockpuppetry going on here. Redotec and GrimyMartin edited this discussion on the same day and relatively the same time period. I won't be suprised if they are confirmed as socks. Versace1608 (Talk) 17:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: I'm a newbie, learning the ropes, be kind. I think the aspect of notability here should be about verifiability not popularity; while factoring the paucity of information on contemporary Nigerian writers. You concede that the subject of the article is verifiable as a contemporary Nigerian writer, but you are not satisfied with his popularity. If we should go by that test, then Wikipedia would have only two or three articles on contemporary writers from Nigeria. Proof here that the subject of this article is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" is evidenced by his participation at the 2014 Ake Book Festival. Generally, I think a deletion of the article page is a very radical solution for an issue of popularity.--GrimyMartin (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as an aside, I'm keen on improving the dozens of stubs on Nigerian writers Category:Nigerian_writer_stubs. Your assistance here is welcome.--GrimyMartin (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GrimyMartin: I didn't say anything about popularity. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG because he has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. It is as simple as that. One's popularity doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. Versace1608 (Talk) 11:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of sockpuppetry by User:Versace1608 is selectively biased as all discussions for and against this deletion have been made on the same day and relatively in the same time period. The other objections are based on User:Versace1608's private opinion on the value of the subject's literary worth and not on the facts. As such, the opinion is better inserted into the article page if facts support it. Mere personal opinions (such as those expressed above) of the subject's literary value are not adequate for a deletion. As a fact, the subject's most recent book was rated as a top 15 Nigerian book in 2013 by a major tv channel THE TOP I5 NIGERIAN BOOKS IN 2013. Furthermore, user User:Versace1608's statement that the subject has written for a number of newspapers is also factually incorrect. The subject runs a private blog which is syndicated among online media, More factually, he has been notably quoted in major newspapers in Nigeria: Letter to Wole Soyinka: Ayo Sogunro replies Sadiq Abacha - See more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/open-letter-wole-soyinka-ayo-sogunro-replies-sadiq-abacha/#sthash.Vw5TLKuK.dpuf; consistently interviewed by foreign media on Nigerian affairs #BringBackOurGirls: Nigeria's Outrage over Boko Haram; and a known advocate of sexual minority rights in Nigeria Accolades, rebuke trail anti-gay law and for which he has been attacked several times after his outspoken defence for the rights of gay Nigerians Nigeria Legislates Against Gay Marriage, Advocacy. I suspect the attempts to have his wikipedia entry deleted are a continuation of the attacks against his widely known pro-gay views in Nigeria, part of the internet "veil of silence" against Nigerian gay rights writers.--Redotec (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shecrownlita: (aka Redotec) Please do not make that assumption. His views on sexuality has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not biased in any way whatsoever. There are tons of LGBT related articles on Wikipedia. I don't want you to think that the subject's personal views on sexuality is the reason behind this article going through the AFD process. I applaud the subject for raising awareness and showing support for same sex equality in his native country. The reason why I believe this article should be deleted is because the subject simply has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject has not been discussed in significant detail. Perhaps he may be notable in the near future, but as of right now, he isn't. I may be wrong about about you being a sockpuppet but until I am proven wrong, I stand by my initial intuition. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. Lack of significant coverages to independent, secondary reliable sources. It fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found significant coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. - Takeaway (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of the sources you found discusses the subject....However, this, this, and this are related to the subject, but they only discuss one of his works and not the author. It's a bit tricky as some of Ayo's works have received significant coverage. However, according to wiki, notability of works doesn't automatically make the author notable. this link contains one of the short biographies (about him) written on each of the guest writers who attended an event....this in no way establishes notability,....for the same reason we cannot say the other guests at the event, listed here are all notable....--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we are here for is to discuss the article subject's notability. If a writer has their book(s) favourably reviewed in leading newspapers, it would seem that the writer is notable. The Union even calls him "one of Nigeria’s most creative youth". The Nation write "The combination of poetry and prose in narrative style shows that Sogunro is an author with deep understanding of the art of writing. ( )...serves as his own forte and style spell him out as a force to reckon with as a literary genius." Japheth J. Omojuwa, who is ranked 29th in the list of most influential black people on digital and social media alongside Barack Obama, Beyoncé, and Oprah Winfrey, apparently takes the trouble to write about Ayo Sogunro that "On Monday, March 31, 2014, controversial Nigerian essayist and writer, Ayo Sogunro will be reading in London, United Kingdom from his book, The Wonderful Life of Senator Boniface and other Sorry Tales at an event organized by the prestigious Royal African Society ("RAS")." I don't think non-notable writers are invited to read there? In this article about gay rights in Nigeria Project MUSE specifically names him as one of the notable people on this subject in Nigeria. The rest of the links show that his opinions apparently matter in Nigeria as it seems that they affect many people in such a way that they reflect on these views. If he was not notable, this wouldn't be the case. - Takeaway (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't change the fact that the subject has only received mentions. No article explains him in detail.....Definition of "significant coverage" according to WP:GNG, clearly states: "...addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". This is makes it clear that the subject of this article hasn't received significant coverage. The least that can be done for this subject is talk about him in LGBT rights in Nigeria. It presently isn't notable enough to warrant a stand alone page on wikipedia. Notability isn't inherited from notable works.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable per WP:AUTHOR. - Takeaway (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Takeaway: He partially meets criteria 1 of WP:AUTHOR. I say partially because being cited by few people doesn't equate to "widely" as outline in criteria 1. As a matter of fact, the Wikipedia:Notability (people) article doesn't specifically state that meeting one requirement of WP:AUTHOR is sufficient for passing the said guideline. I don't think this is enough considering the fact that he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Just as Tubers pointed, being invited to participate at a book reading or hanging around notable writers doesn't establish notability on Wikipedia. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plus, the book reading was for the book he authored for that matter.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1 would be the case for his "I am corrupt because I am Nigerian" essay I think, which has been widely cited and/or criticised online and also in a few articles, which although not a true indication of WP notability, is inherent of his modus operandi, being very active in social media as a commentator on Nigerian culture and values. And I think he actually meets criteria 3 most of all: The person has created..( )..a significant or well-known work..( )..that has been the subject of..( )..independent periodical articles or reviews. having two of Nigeria's leading newspapers write about his book, and notable others regarding it as significant, isn't bad I think? Which leads to criteria 4c: he has won critical attention. And WP:AUTHOR is not to be seen as additional criteria to GNG, but as specific criteria for creative professionals. If they are notable per WP:AUTHOR, they are notable per GNG. In WP:Notability (people), of which WP:AUTHOR is a subsection, it actually states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Thebook reading was at a very prestigious institute (RAS). You don't just get invited there if you're a nobody. - Takeaway (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the book is well known! A well known book is a book like Half of a Yellow Sun or Harry Potter, not this; I don't even know the name. And it hasn't received MULTIPLE independent PERIODICAL articles or reviews...just FEW! critical attention? how many critics or scholars have analyzed this book, please? And Royal African Society (RAS) isn't "PRESTIGIOUS". It is infact hardly notable. And contrary to your belief, anybody can be a member, as it is clearly stated here. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how many notable book review magazines/newspapers there are in Nigeria. Having two leading newspapers writing glowing reviews about a non-fiction book, which indeed is not a blockbuster book such as Harry Potter, sounds significant to me. It's like a notable art film, which also can not be put into the same category as, well, Harry Potter films. They have much smaller audiences, and do not rake in as much money if any. The criteria says significant or well-known. According to the two leading newspapers it is significant. That it is not well-known is a pity.
Yes indeed, anyone who is interested can become a member of the RAS which is a good thing. But not everyone is asked to speak there. Here is what the RAS says about itself: "The Royal African Society is Britain's prime Africa organisation. Now more than 100 years old, its in-depth, long-term knowledge of the continent and its peoples makes the Society the first stop for anyone wishing to know more.". This is who normally are invited to speak there: "We often get famous professors on stage for our meetings but they are not often joined by the scion of South Africa’s richest family, a rock star and the head of the British army." Here is the page mentioning the members of the council of the RAS with the Queen herself as patron, and in that capacity, kind of a member (they're not just a bunch of well-meaning amateurs and having the Queen herself as patron does make it quite prestigious as a British society). And here is what Ayo Sogundo did there (not just a book reading but he was also invited as a speaker on LGBT rights in Nigeria.
"Critical attention" means that critics have read it and given it attention. And the book reading at the RAS also counts as critical attention I think? - Takeaway (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Takeaway: He fails criteria 3 of WP:AUTHOR because the book he wrote is not significant or well known. Having two Nigerian newspapers write a short length review is not significant. Wikipedia is all about reliable sources and extensive courage. If you think his books are "significant", try creating articles about them and see the outcome. Being invited to speak at events is not enough to warrant a stand alone article. The fact of the matter is that the subject has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources currently cited in the article does not establish notability. Anyone who has not been discussed in significant detail through independent reliable sources shouldn't have a stand alone article on Wikipedia. It is as simple as that. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? That glowing reviews in two leading newspapers in Nigeria of a Nigerian book do not make that book significant. Nor the author being called "a genius" and "one of Nigeria’s most creative youth". Should the New York Times have reviewed this Nigerian book perhaps? Where else would one need to see book reviews in Nigeria may I ask? To make this book and therefore the author notable? - Takeaway (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop saying "leading" newspapers. I can argue that of those three newspapers, only The Nation is credible. There's not much information about the editorial staff and publication history of the remaining two. They are not even listed in the List of newspapers in Nigeria article. There are tons of authors who have been called a "genius" or "one of the most creative youth in their country". Being praised is not enough to warrant a stand alone article. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I was under the impression that "The Union" was a notable newspaper. I am not sure which is the third one you refer to. So what I did instead was look up what were actually popular media in Nigeria and I found this website with a top 20. I have no idea how they arrived at this top 20 but it is what I followed. starting at number 1. Vanguard (Nigeria): mentioned as "writer and critique Ayo Sogunro" 2. The Punch: Ayo Sogunro cited, Ayo Sogunro mentioned as lawyer, Ayo Sogunro cited 3. Sahara Reporters: Ayo Sogunro's open letter to Sadiq Abacha posted 5. Nigerian Tribune: Ayo Sogunro extensively quoted 6. The Nation (Nigeria): Ayo Sogunro mentioned as speaker 7. Thisday: Ayo Sogunro quoted 10. Naij: Open letter to Sadiq Abacha published 15. Channels TV: Channels Book Club interview with three writers, one of them Ayo Sogunro, on his book "The Wonderful Life Of Senator Boniface And Other Sorry Tales" 19. Online Nigeria News: Open letter to Sadiq Abacha published 20. Information Nigeria: Open letter to Sadiq Abacha published.

7 from the top 10 all mention Ayo Sogunro. And just one open letter of his gets published in several top 20 Nigerian news sites. And he's still not notable enough for a standalone article?

I still don't know which notable Nigerian literary review magazines his book needs to be reviewed in for you so that it is seen as notable.

In WP:Notability (people) it reads: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It would seem that with the aforementioned, and the above-mentioned book reviews, and also being invited as a speaker at the RAS which normally invites "famous professors", and being regarded as an expert on the legalities of LGBT rights in Nigeria by Project MUSE, would seem sufficient to establish Ayo Sogunro's notability. - Takeaway (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is not notable. None of the sources you cited discusses him in detail. As stated earlier in this discussion, the "subject runs a private blog which is syndicated among online media." Just because his writings have been circulated in newspapers doesn't mean he is notable. This is the point you're failing to understand. There are tons of Nigerian writers whose writings are recycled among Nigerian newspapers. Does this mean that they are all notable? I have said this and continue to say this. The subject of this article is not notable. He has not been discussed in significant detail. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually forgot all about Redotec's mentioning of France 24 and Ebony (magazine) having Ayo Sogunro as an expert. As for having his open letter published in several top 20 media sites does really mean something. Many journalists distribute what they have written to different outlets. It is the outlets that choose on the basis of it being something newsworthy, and having a personal letter published so widely, means that several top 20 news outlets think that Ayo Sogunro's personal views on this matter are apparently notable. This one letter has also generated a huge amount of talk in Nigeria apparently, judging from the online buzz and mentions in less notable media outlets than the top 20 here. As for the top 20 I have above, the majority of the links are to media that talk about him, not articles that were written by him. I really find your opposition in the face of the overwhelming evidence that this man is notable per WP:Notability (people) a bit strange. I will quote from WP:Notability (people) once more: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". You must have your reasons to find him non-notable, and I have discovered that he is quite notable. There's much more to be found on him but as I wrote above, I have limited myself to the top 20 as mentioned in that list. - Takeaway (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it, do you? This subject is just not notable! The statement you quoted says "if the DEPTH of coverage in any given source is not SUBSTANTIAL......", this means that the multiple sources that would establish notability may not have SUBSTANTIAL DEPTH, but must still have some kinda DEPTH on the subject and not mentions...that's the reason the concluding part of the sentence (which you've always left out) says: "....;trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This means; even if there are multiple sources, trivial coverage still may not establish notability. I won't reply to you anymore. I will just wait for admin to close the discussion (or for other users to contribute).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This controversial writer and social commentator really gets a huge amount of attention in, and outside of, official media for someone who is, as two people here repeatedly keep stating, non-notable... - Takeaway (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous mentions of the subject in leading Nigerian newspapers — like the ones Takeaway has provided — and on some international news websites plus 2 - 3 quality reviews of his works indicates that the subject is notable and are enough to earn him a stand alone article. However all unsourced information in the BLP may be marked with the citations template or removed if they appear contentious. And if all unsourced contentious contents are removed, the article may likely be brought down to stub class. Either that, or a maintenance template be placed indicating that the article lacks or needs additional reliable sources for verification. Stanleytux (talk) 19:35, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Kelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Appears to violate WP:COISELF as self-written (since April 2009) and no claim to notability listed. GauchoDude (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the notability standard. No particular accomplishments are listed in the article; more than half of the text is about her relatives. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 1 book, which is in only 14 worldcat libraries. Her notable relatives already have articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 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 redirect to Southern Broadcasting Network. Of note is that article content remains available in its revision history, if anyone wants to merge content. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Headline News[edit]

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

Another unotable news program with nothing about it at all. Wgolf (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also this is being created by a possible sock puppet it looks like. Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Southern Broadcasting Network. This is a reasonable search term. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 29 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 ♔ 14:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Southern Broadcasting Network or List of programs aired by ETC/SBN#News, where it is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayna Jaymes (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the network as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning toward a merge, but two merge targets have been suggested. Relisting to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Southern Broadcasting Network. I'm not sure there's really that much to merge here, but it's pretty clear there's not a lot to back up this article existing on its own. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:20, 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 redirect to Akira Toriyama. After two relistings, more input here would have been ideal. Of note is that article content remains available in its revision history, if anyone wants to merge content. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toccio the Angel[edit]

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

Non-notable book, although it is written by a notable author. Has been tagged for notability for more than a year with no changes to the article. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akira Toriyama, as was done for Mr. Ho (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Ho). Calathan (talk) 04:00, 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 ♔ 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:18, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 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 redirect to Council of British Druid Orders. The necessary merging has already been done, so a redirect is all that is needed at this point. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Order of Druids[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The 1st AfD was closed as no consensus with no prejudice to speedy re-nomination, as it attracted only one comment. I put my original reason as 'I could not establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a merge or redirect, but I couldn't find an appropriate target to propose.' If this is notable, I couldn't verify it. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This material should be at Council of British Druid Orders.[20] This is the umbrella organization of the Stonehenge neo-druid groups. SOD has been folded into this larger group and no longer has a separate existence. The Council holds a ceremony at Stonehenge on the summer solstice, and there is often media coverage.[21] Each member is his own "order," so the individual orders don't merit seperate coverage. Claimsworth (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created Council of British Druid Orders and moved what I thought was useful in this article to there. So we can go ahead and delete or redirect this one. Claimsworth (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, either as above, or to the battle which instigated it's creation. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge or Redirect to Council of British Druid Orders. The latter seems to have enough coverage for at least a plausible claim of notability, and there is enough evidence of the connection to make this a reasonable redirect. PWilkinson (talk) 22:48, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch tha cataclysm[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject of this BLP. I do not believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:38, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Subject does not appear to be significantly covered in reliable sources, let alone enough to meet WP:BLP. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:22, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Kiprotich Korir[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying almost entirely on primary sources, of a person notable only as a political staffer and as a non-winning candidate for election to Parliament. These are not claims of notability that pass WP:NPOL, and the quality of sourcing doesn't grant him WP:GNG either — of the reference citations here, only #6 is actual coverage of him in a reliable source (#2 and #9 are technically reliable sources too, but he's the author of #2 and merely blurbed in #9), while everything else is to his profiles on the webpages of his employers, to campaign literature or to his own Facebook page. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a proper version citing real sources and making a substantive claim of notability can be created, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at google, there are a whole range of diverse almost-reliable English-language sources, which is exactly what you'd expect from a non-English-language politician. Things like http://www.jambonewspot.com/top-100-most-influential-kenyans/ are particularly persuasive for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A WordPress blogger namechecking him in a completely subjective list of who he personally deems to be the "100 Most Influential Kenyans", on his own blog and without so much as a single scrap of actual sourced or substantiated evidence for his rankings, is persuasive for you? Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, http://www.deputypresident.go.ke/index.php/principal-administrative-secretary/31-administration/141-nixon-kiprotich-korir seems to indicate a relatively notable position in national government. Plus runner-up in MP election. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of what seems to be a first-order national government department DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Soman and DGG does appear to pass WP:GNG as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 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 redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh Games[edit]

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

No third-party sources provided to demonstrate it is notable (except Tubefilter which is just a blogsite for youtube content). Merge anything that might be worth merging, and delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I deleted the article shortly after it was created, but reverted that two days later, I can't remember why. At the time the only third party source was Tubefilter, and it still is, perhaps Soulbust can further explain the notability of the subject. ZappaOMati and I have mostly been patrolling for vandalism and keeping it up to date, making us the largest editors. Otterathome, I assume by merge, you mean Smosh? 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 5 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Smosh - Insufficient sources and non-trivial content to merit a stand-alone article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, loads of secondary sources easily found at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? czar ♔ 00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Smosh (parent article). All WP:VG/RS custom Google search hits were for "Honest Games Trailers", which might be able to support its own article (though I wouldn't push it—just build it within the parent and only spin out if necessary). Other than winning the "Streamy", I couldn't find coverage of Smosh Games from news sources, so it makes sense to merge it into its closest article and build out summary style until more sourcing is available. Current article sourcing is mostly primary and the rest is unreliable or passing mentions. czar ♔ 00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Smosh. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added new references Soulbust (talk) 07:33, 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. Keep, on the basis of the discussion here and at the afd for the 2011 article, there seems to be sufficient consensus, and consistency from year to year on a series like this is desirable. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay World 2012[edit]

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

Mr Gay World is enough. No need for articles for each year. The text depends only on primary sources. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable from Mr Gay World, per nom. Lack of reliable independent secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Andreas Derleth as lacking sufficient in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Redirect to Andreas Derleth~~ Keep - ~~event has not got the required coverage in its own right~~. Keep as per Cirt's sources below. Mabalu (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice source coverage found at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make the searches that way: Add '2012' and '-wiki' to 'your title', search; then tell us if you have found any 'reliable' source. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt:, please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers as to the problems with the approach you suggested above. Have you in fact identified any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources? If so could you clue in the rest of us as to which specific sources those might be? As stated above, we didn't find them. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: National Public Radio, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, Radio Netherlands Worldwide Africa, Mamba Online, The Guardian, India Times, are a few that gave it source coverage in 2012 alone. — Cirt (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I'm swayed. Not sure about the legitmacy of the pic galleries (albeit evidence of coverage) but the actual articles are good ones. If we have to put up with a torrent of ninnies in bikinis from barely notable pageants, then bring on the hunks in trunks as a counterbalance! Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 13:38, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that after additional participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Gay World 2011 by Carrite, that AFD was closed as Keep. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tourist Company[edit]

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

Delete - Relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources with extremely little evidence of real media coverage which properly verifies that the article would pass WP:MUSICIAN - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive or properly sourced claim to notability under WP:NMUSIC. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they can be properly sourced as achieving more than a couple of purely local honours, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 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 Ummagumma. w/o prejudice to merging verificable content j⚛e decker ^talk 17:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sysyphus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Article has references in the lead, but they are passing mentions, the remainder of the article is unsourced. I've reduced the article to a redirect to Ummagumma several times but have been reverted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After removing the original research, about all that's left is confirmation that it exists. Will never be more than a WP:PERMASTUB. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 30 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 ♔ 00:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge to Ummagumma. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 6 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) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete it? And if people go to search for this song on Wikipedia, they find nothing then what do you do? don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.177.131 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep " I've reduced the article to a redirect to Ummagumma several times but have been reverted. " Maybe that's a hint! You've heard of consensus, right? It's just that everyone else keeps giving the wrong answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ummagumma. I'd figured that every Pink Floyd song would have sufficient analysis to pass WP:GNG, even the more obscure ones like this. However, I've just spent some time looking for sources, and apart from brief mentions that this was Wright's contribution to the album, nobody seems to have paid it much attention as the contributions from Gilmour and Waters. I don't think I could say in good conscience that this meets the WP:GNG, as much as I'd like it to. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm quite happy with a redirect to Ummagumma, I'm just not sure what the avenue is to decide between keeping or redirecting something. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is more for taking two existing articles and combining them somehow, where as here (per both Lankiveil's research and my own) there would be little to redirect as the song has never been discussed or covered by anyone in any depth and the (now-deceased) composer has never mentioned it other than to disown it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 22 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIATest[edit]

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

Unreferenced. I can't find any support for its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The 'test and try' external link is in depth but from a blog (all articles are by the same author) and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding hardly anything in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garvan Gallagher[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP, I do not believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 28 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 ♔ 20:58, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs after 6 months? Is the BLP policy a policy or a joke? Bazj (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Shonki[edit]

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

It could be the result of a language barrier but I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, don't believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 28 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 ♔ 20:59, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general notability threshold and also fails WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage as already noted above. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:46, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Giriraj Sharma[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are self-published or contain only a brief mention. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_Giriraj_Sharma Ankurjoshi87 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 28 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 ♔ 20:59, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not Notable. Cites own website as sources. Google Search results reveals other Acharya Giriraj, other than the subject's website. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and there are no indication of importance, in fact it seems to be self-promotion. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS and is self promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:59, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best life music[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The group has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article. The creator of this article asked me in the past to help him create the article, but I told him that the group isn't notable. The article was previously deleted. None of the references cited discuss the group in significant detail. Versace1608 (Talk) 14:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 14:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^[2]

^ MTV, Music. "Best Life Music page on Mtv Artist". mtv.com. MTV.
^ African Muzik, Mag. "Best Life Music Short Bio". africanmuzikmag.com. African Muzik Mag.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:59, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 19:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelic Society[edit]

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

There is no evidence that such a society ever existed outside Michael Lamy's work. ObscurityPrince (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually there is quite a lot of evidence that the society did exist, if not in the form expressed by Michael Lamy. The nineteenth-century scholar Henri Baudrier spoke of Sebastian Gryphius's printshop as a « société angélique pour les libres-penseurs ». Un illustre imprimeur lyonnais à la BU : Sébastien Gryphe (1492-1556) (in French) Charles Dickens mentioned Rabelais's membership. Dickens, Charles (1890). "French kings and their dinners". All The Year Round: A Weekly Journal (98 (Third Series) (15 November 1890)): 462–469, page 463.Here are two mentions by Claude Sosthène Grasset d'Orcet:

Matériaux Cryptographiques - Tome 1, Les Trois R, "Le Songe de Poliphile" (June 1881), page 272

C’est plutôt une imitation qu’une traduction qui a dû servir, comme tous les ouvrages de ce genre, de formulaire d’initiation à quelque cénacle de savants et d’artistes, tel que celui que le grand imprimeur lyonnais Gryphe avait fondé sous le nom de Société Angélique, ce qui indique une société placée sous le patronage ultra-maçonnique de saint Gille, dont les adeptes avaient pris pour cimier une tête d’ange (chef angel). Étienne Dolet et Bonaventure Despériers, qui finirent tous deux si misérablement, appartenaient comme Rabelais à cette société si étrangement angélique. Where he says ... "such as the one founded by [[Sebastian Gryphius|Gryphius], the well-known printer from Lyon, which took as its name Société Angélique, was under the Masonic patronage of Saint Giles, and took as their chief symbol (crest) the head of an angel."

Matériaux Cryptographiques - Tome 1, Les Trois R, "Le Songe de Poliphile" (June 1881), page 290

Il y parle tantôt au nom de son frère, et tantôt au nom de ses frères, sans les nommer, ce qui semble indiquer que ces derniers ne sont pas des frères selon la nature, mais les adeptes d’une loge semblable à la Société Angélique dont Rabelais. Where he says ... "Sometimes he speaks from the point of view of his brother, and sometimes from the point of view of his brethern, without naming them, suggesting that they are not brothers by sanguinity, but are rather members of the same lodge of (or belong to) the Société Angélique of which Rabelais was a member.

See also the web pages Patrick Berlier – La Société Angélique – Documents and La Société Angélique - regards du pilat (both in French) for quotes of further remarks by Grasset d’Orcet, and a discussion of their meaning. It seems that the society was a group of scholars and writers with some masonic trappings, and functioned more as an idea clearing house than as a secret-society. It was secret only to the extent that the Ancien Régime feared and sometimes repressed the new ideas that were the stock in trade of the society. It was formed in Lyon during the "Lyon Renaissance". The deep conspiracy aspects do seem to be entirely the creation of Michel Lamy. The article should probably be renamed Société Angélique rather than the current name which is not that au courant. --Bejnar (talk) 19:59, 28 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 ♔ 21:00, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The material cited above seems sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Na'sha[edit]

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

No independent sources; tagged for notability since 2008. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 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 ♔ 21:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability, a search for adequate sources produced very little. Gloss • talk 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable. Unrelated entries appear in Google search with keyword "na'sha american singer"-Vatsan34 (talk) 18:03, 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. Discussion for a rename should take place on the article talk page, this closure shouldn't be inferred as supporting or opposing such. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Sovereignty[edit]

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

Non-notable "flash in the pan" protest. Very little news coverage, questionable historical significance or proven effect on society, and a significant proportion of online search results by Google point to Marxist-Leninist websites and blogs with limited notability or reliability. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 28 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 ♔ 21:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in The Age, a newspaper of record, includes this article. If a country's prime minister takes the time to oppose something (such as this camp), that is an argument in favout of notability. This demonstrates that the camp and its effects are still being discussed in 2014. See here for further coverage in The Age. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In light of the additional citations from Eastmain, I withdraw my earlier support for delete. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Eastmain's analysis. I am One of Many (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Wikinews entry of this camp calls it as StolenWealth Games. Why not rename the article to that title? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:59, 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 00:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Galli (company)[edit]

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

non notable and promotional. The references are press releases. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/comment - First reaction was - "I think I've heard of them." But there are quite a few Giovanni Gallis out there, including Giovanni Galli the footballer-politician and a chocolatier. They're definitely going places - building up their brand - but I am not seeing that there's compelling evidence of notability beyond namechecks here and there at this point. Certainly seems WP:TOOSOON. I looked at the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese wikis but they didn't really look terribly good. I'm open to changing my vote if sources can be found, as I would not be surprised if they exist. Mabalu (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I would like to complete some information breaches noticed on the two arguments above. The sources may appear to be press releases, but when the article was written in other languages, some of the reviewers did not accept interviews of the CEO because they were in Youtube. Or because it was an online magazine. My question is: is that enough for this wikipedia? What should I do to keep it?

--92MVG (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

interviews of the CEO do not normally show the organization is notable--especially on youtube. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable. Not much covered in national newspapers. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 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 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barr (radio presenter)[edit]

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

The eferences for the notability of this local radio announcer are essentially press releases; the award too is only local. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references given for the notability reference newspapers, the site of the WAAMI awards - the local radio announcer is local and therefore wins (numerous) local awards and even presents at them - would the same not be considered true of a New York City award-winning radio announcer? With all due respect, is there a problem with the state of Western Australia awarding their own broadcasting awards to their own presenters and local broadcast award-winners being recognised? tokenskeptic ( talk ) 19:33 29 September 2014 (UTC)

how far down would you carry this? I think its well established that awards at less than the national level do not generally count for notability. (And yes, I'd apply this in NYC also, unless the announcer is carried on a major network outside the city.) DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The search keywords for "Peter Barr Australia" in Google does not retrieve much results. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 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 ♔ 21:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete probable AUTOBIO as primarily worked on as a single purpose editor. The sources merely confirm biographical details. The award he won is not a significant award in Australian radio industry. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 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 delete. Secret ^account 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boobay[edit]

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

Was tagged as a blp prod but the creator deleted it, unsourced person who looks unotable. Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BLPPROD is not something that can simply be removed without providing a reliable source. I have re-added it. If we had reliable sources I might reconsider, but right now I see no indication that Boobay meets the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. HighBeam yields a reliable source, a substantive profile in the Manila Bulletin [22], which I have added to the article. Finding more will probably require digging through sources that are partly or wholly in Tagalog. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon-yes I know-but since the creator kept on removing it, that had to be done. Wgolf (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the creator was just blocked as a sock of blocked User:Ivan Clarin. It might be possible to write an article on Boobay per the source found by Arxiloxos (and additional sources in Tagalog, if they can be found), but I don't think we'd lose much if we deleted this until someone is interested in doing the necessary work. Huon (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please add more reliable source, as one source is written fully on him. Might be Notable. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:08, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sourced statement is a small WP:TRIVIAL notice. If we deleted all unsourced material as we ought for WP:BLP's, there's no there there, and fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the characterization of that source as "trivial"; it's a reasonably substantial article about the subject's background and career. The problem is that I couldn't find anything else so substantial in English, and my meager abilities in Filipino are not equal to the task of sifting through the dozens of news sources that mention him. He's a co-host of a national TV program in a country of 100 million, so additional sources might well exist if someone is able—and cares—to look. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete without prejudice to a proper article being written. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 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. Wizardman 16:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Thorpe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player. Previous AFD was kept because of his playing in top level leagues in Mexico and Venezuela, however the guidelines have changed since then so those leagues no longer qualify for automatic notability. Spanneraol (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mostly referenced from non-notable sources. Appears in one or two lines in Seattle Times. Not Notable. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using the same argument I used when I AfDed this three years ago. Alex (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now that we're settled that the LMB and VPBL shouldn't grant automatic inclusion into Wikipedia, we can delete this article about a subject that fails to meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others.--Yankees10 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:58, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeth Sugathan[edit]

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

Hoax, no relevant badminton player with this name out there, never heard this name, no national (All Indian!) or international ADULT tournament wins. Mentioned partners Binoy P V and Gireesh s do not exist, never was like mentioned in the world ranking at all. References are not related to this person, except a standard facebook page. Search for rankings here: http://www.bwfbadminton.org/page.aspx?id=15539 Florentyna (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's not a hoax, the subject isn't mentioned in any of the sources. Two youtube videos and a questionable facebook page are useless for showing notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Appears to be a hoax could not find any player with the same name and did not find such ranked player .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the Badminton association of India list Do not find any such player or any such player called Binoy P V and Gireesh s . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Possibly a fake page. Even if its not fake, not worth to have. I think the achievements are NOT notable enough. The events and tournaments mentioned are just some amateur competitions. Please do a speedy delete. Athachil (talk) 07:17, 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.

[1] MTV, Music. "Best Life Music page on Mtv Artist". mtv.com. MTV.

[2] African Muzik, Mag. "Best Life Music Short Bio". africanmuzikmag.com. African Muzik Mag.

[2]