Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 October	18 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nevada, 2014. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Teijeiro[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate in an election. As always, this is not a valid claim of notability under WP:NPOL — a person must win the election, not merely run in it, to claim notability on that basis — and the article as written does not make any substantive claim, or cite enough reliable sourcing, to demonstrate that she gets past a different notability rule for anything else. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but until then she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Nevada, 2014, where she is already appropriately listed. Discrete search term, can be reversed and expanded if she wins. Dru of Id (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as unelected candidate with passing coverage in independent sources but no indication of notability. Tiller54 (talk) 17:32, 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 Redirect to Colonial Nigeria. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria[edit]

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

The article contains the same information as another article - Colonial Nigeria, which seems to serve the same purpose as well. It can be redirected to the Colonial Nigeria article.Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the formal title given to the colony when Northern and Southern Nigeria were merged. See here for example. As this is a valid historical name for the place, it should not be a red link. Merger into another article such as Nigeria is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the nomination statement. Andrew is correct to point out that AfD is not the venue for this, but as we are here we might as well get consensus here rather than separately at the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plain redirect to Colonial Nigeria. There is nothing in the present article worth merging. Andrew Davidson is correct in saying that it should not become a redlink, but redirecting will not do that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colonial Nigeria per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Merging at the discretion of the closing admin. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 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 keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 ^Talk 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda (turkey)[edit]

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

Zelda doesn't seem to have held any note worthiness outside of being an oddity in the city. She has no world records or any real claim to fame that withstands a worldwide notability. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about a selective merge into Battery Park? It looks like she (and the other turkey) have received enough coverage to where they'd merit at least a mention in the overall BP page, at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One might equally merge into Zelda Fitzgerald or one might develop it into some large topic about wildlife in New York. That's all ordinary editing, not deletion, and so outside the scope of this discussion. Andrew (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple New York Times and Daily News articles, including a NYT obituary, meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A world record is not required. The subject has been noticed and that's sufficient. Andrew (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient WP:RS. A turkey can be notable by WP standards. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. In addition to the news coverage from New York sources, the topic has received significant national and international news coverage, such as from The Telegraph, National Public Radio (a 4:04 broadcast) and the Chicago Tribune. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom has some interesting standards that don't align remotely with notability guidelines. The turkey's death was worthy of news coverage as was her life. If it meets standards for humans, it's good enough for animals. StarM 03:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the turkey has been featured in many sources and news media. If everything with a Wikipedia article were required to have a world record or other such claim, 90% of articles would be deleted. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:52, 24 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. This subject appears to be right on the borderline of notability. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus one way or the other, therefore the article will be kept by default unless a future consensus forms. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VideoPad[edit]

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

Hi. Subject of this article is not notable. In addition to the CNET and TopTenReviews sources mentioned in the article, I could find a Chip.de and a Softonic review as well, but none of these constitute the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. (See WP:WHYN for details.) I cannot find evidence to prove that this computer program has any impact. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article^WebCite from Top Ten Reviews (which is owned by the American online publishing company Purch) provides 11 paragraphs of coverage about the subject.
This article^WebCite from Datamonitor provides several paragraphs of coverage about the subject:
NCH Software, a provider of audio, video, business and telephony or VoIP tools and utilities, has added a playback speed variation feature to its VideoPad video editing software.
According to the company, the software's new capability comes just in time for summer, when outdoor activities, vacations, and get-togethers with family and friends mean taking lots of video. Users now have control over a video's action.
VideoPad lets users capture video directly from a DV Camcorder, VHS player, or webcam, while video, image, or audio files can be imported directly. The application supports all common video file formats, including avi, wmv, 3gp, wmv and divx.
The review^WebCite from Softonic.com provides six paragraphs of coverage about VideoPad.
This article^WebCite from Redding Record Searchlight provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject:
If you don't like the interface or find Windows Movie Maker too bulky or difficult, a great alternative option is VideoPad Video Editor Pro (www.nchsoft ware.com/videopad/index.html). VideoPad offers a 14-day free trial; if you like it, you may want to spend $30 to buy it.
The easy-to-use VideoPad brings advanced features to the beginner. You can record your own voiceover narration or import recorded narrations, something Movie Maker lacks. Also, the full product lets you create Blu-ray DVDs, a feature that typically requires the purchase of additional software.
This article^WebCite from The Sunday Times gives VideoPad a passing mention, so it doesn't contribute to notability. But the previous three sources do contribute to notability.
VideoPad passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could simply be WP:TOOSOON for this one. Lacks the multiple reliable independent sources necessary to establish notability. The CNet "5-stars" is helpful but simply too weak as the only source. I also checked newspapers.com and highbeam.com (fabulous for AfDs -- if you don't have a free account yet, ask at WP:Newspapers.com and WP:HighBeam) and was surprised to find there is a likely notable Videopad (Boston Globe, Aug 1, 1993) but it's not this one. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like advertising to me. The Banner talk 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's the SoftSonic review, which isn't a great source but ok. The Sunday Times passing mention, as a passing mention, doesn't contribute to GNG. The Record Searchlight piece is a little more than a passing mention but still just a couple lines of promotional copy. The Top Ten Reviews piece is discounted as unreliable (the "buy" link uses a referral code -- e.g. they get paid if you buy it based on their review). Datamonitor is again just a couple lines of PR copy. Might be too soon for this, but I'm certainly not seeing enough to pass GNG or any other notability criteria. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to NCH Software (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
Cunard (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I voted "keep" and continue to believe that VideoPad Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I disagree with the statement that the Redding Record Searchlight is providing "just a couple lines of promotional copy". It is a reliable source, a newspaper that has an editorial staff. Scroll to the bottom of http://www.redding.com/contact. To say the content is "promotional copy" is impugning columnist Andrea Eldridge's integrity, a serious charge to make without evidence. I strongly doubt that Eldridge was paid to write that information. It is her own review of VideoPad for her newspaper's readers. The coverage there is significant enough to pass the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The Top Ten Reviews article says, "The Verdict: 6.15/10. VideoPad is great for beginners, but it doesn't offer as many tools as other products we reviewed." Although the page has a download link, the 6.15/10 rating indicates that the reviewer is not just trying to sell VideoPad. Furthermore, http://www.toptenreviews.com/methodology.html says:
TopTenREVIEWS is not a pay-for-placement publication. Our editorial staff independently researches the review topic to determine which products are included. Once the reviews are published, our sales team pursues various means of developing revenue for each site. We maintain a strict separation between the editorial and sales teams to ensure that our readers find the information that they are looking for without concern about manipulation.
I think it is a mistake to discount Top Ten Reviews as a reliable source.
The articles from Softonic.com, Top Ten Reviews, and the Redding Record Searchlight are reliable sources that provide detailed coverage of the subject.
Cunard (talk) 11:28, 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, v/r - T P 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been relisted after a DRV reached no consensus and the closing sysop and DRV nom agreed to a relist.--v/r - T P 21:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the talk page discussions for reference: User talk:Randykitty#Are you around? and User talk:TParis/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom by Codename Lisa, Msnicki, TheBanner, Rhododendrites, and my previous close. The "keep" arguments are not convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm confused about the developments related to this AfD since its close. Could someone summarize? (TParis?) This looks like an open and shut AfD, with a single voice arguing inclusion and not even one reliable source supporting notability (see my previous comments). What I gleaned was that someone wanted the edit history reinstated and a complicated discussion took place concerning whether to do so and how to do so. Does that mean comments since its relisting should be geared in that direction? If consensus is again to delete, will it still be deleted? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Cunard would like you to consider the last minute question he raised pertaining to making this a redirect instead of a delete and redirect. AFD close will be considered alone normal consensus measuring techniques. Per Cunard, would you consider a redirect w/ history instead of a delete and redirect?--v/r - TP 21:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)x2 If there are new sources I missed in DRV and elsewhere, I'm happy to look at them. Otherwise, I don't know why we would make an exception for this, which was not even -- to me anyway -- a borderline case. As general principle I don't have a problem with moving deleted articles, history intact, to the Drafts space if someone is confident the article can be improved, but the history should stay with the article in Drafts and the article, if it redirects, should be just that. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose retaining the history and the redirect. Delete means delete. We don't normally even bother with the redirect, much less keeping the history. What is special this time? If User:Cunard or others believe in the product and that sources are likely to be found, fine, the answer is to WP:USERFY it without objection so they can continue to work on it. It's entirely possible this is merely a case of WP:TOOSOON. But I've seen no reasons to keep a redirect and no reasons whatsoever to keep the history. "Deleting" the page but keeping the history isn't even deleting, it's just blanking. Everything is still there. That's just not what anyone means when they !vote delete at an AfD, to the point that I find it completely implausible that anyone could conclude that that's the "consensus" here. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard challenged the close, arguing that it was not an appropriate non-admin close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad. Without objection, the AfD has been reopened and relisted. Good call, btw. Msnicki (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The afd wasn't closed by a non-admin, or he wouldn't have been able to delete the history in the first place. The inappropriate non-admin close was of the DRV, and that was challenged at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad; TParis reverted and reclosed that discussion. —Cryptic 21:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll take your word for it. :) The debate was tedious enough the first time. I'm certainly not going back for another look. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything mergeable past the first sentence, and if it's somehow kept outright, nothing currently in the Interface section has any place in a Wikipedia article. Eldridge's review may or may not be promotional copy, but this page certainly is, and there's no benefit to the encyclopedia to keeping this spam around, even hidden away in history. Should either be deleted, deleted and redirected, or deleted and rewritten from scratch; I have no strong opinion as to which. —Cryptic 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have merged useful content from VideoPad into NCH Software, citing the content from sources provided here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCH Software. I welcome copyedits to it to make it better. Cunard (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified everyone at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad of this relisted AfD except for the three editors who already participated here after the relist (Cryptic, Msnicki, and Randykitty). Cunard (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For starters, just a couple months ago, Maximum PC magazine named it the best free video editor:[1]

“

And the Winner is... VideoPad is easily the best free video editor available. It stands up against Premiere and Final Cut while still being fairly approachable for amatuers. It's not the prettiest or the most feature-packed, but it'll do almost everything a hobbyist videopgraher would need it to.

”

I would say that that's pretty significant. In addition to the sources already mentioned above, this topic has also received additional coverage by PC Magazine,PC World and Times of India. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The Maximum PC source is the first good one I've seen, and Times of India is ok, but PC World and PC Magazine are just database entries rather than actual content. It's enough to merit the merge certainly, but hopefully we can find more if we're going to keep the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can certainly understand why you'd say that the PC World source is a database entry, but I don't agree that the PC Magazine article is a database entry. It has a byline; it was written by Michael Muchmore, PC Magazine's Lead Software Analyst. It certainly appears as if he wrote it himself, and not some blind regurgitation of some press release. In any case, here's a different PC World article that's clearly not a database entry[2] and here's an older Maximum PC magazine article where it's named one of the best 65 free software of 2013.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the sources you've found clearly demonstrate that VideoPad has received the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thank you for finding the sources I didn't find during my searches. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the correct outcome, as Randykitty did after deleting, and was roughly endorsed during the deletion review. The article should be removed and the redirect should be restored. The history should be visible under the redirect, because there's no pressing reason to delete it and this is a wiki.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata and Thincat have noted below that they want the history retained if the discussion is closed as "redirect" but they have no view on whether the subject is notable. What are your thoughts about the subject's notability after A Quest For Knowledge posted several new sources? Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean. The PC Magazine entry says the product hasn't been reviewed by PC Magazine editors, which I think seriously inhibits its value as a contributor to notability. This PC World source does not seem to be a review. This Times of India source is rather better, and I think does contribute to notability. This PC World source also contributes to notability. It might be over the bar, actually. I've struck a substantial proportion of my recommendation above.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources. I also posted several sources before the relist. Some of those sources might in conjunction with A Quest For Knowledge's sources push this more comfortably over the bar. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. I have no view on whether the article is notable; I'm just too unfamiliar with the subject matter. My contribution to this discussion is solely to say that there is no good reason to delete the article. If the subject is notable, it should of course be kept. If the subject is not notable, there is a perfectly good redirect target and no reason to delete the article's history in case, for instance, material can be merged into the target article. And, indeed, seeing as Cunard has already merged some content, deleting the history would now be improper. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was invited here after my comment at DRV where I said that deletion on notability grounds should not necessitate history deletion if there is a redirect. If the redirect is made quite separately after the AFD, history restoration would also likely be a sensible request. I have no view on whether we should have an article on VideoPad. There is a suitable merge target and so keeping the history under any redirect seems best to me. However, moving to draft, userfying, merging or keeping would also be OK – too much to put in bold type. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Marginally notable software product. Borderline case; not clear if this should be deleted so defaulting to keep side. I hope this does not go to DRV again :( jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a half-page reference including a picture found using Google Books:

Zpracování videa pro učitele (Video Processing for Teachers). Jirí Dostál, Palacky University. Faculty of Education. 2011. p. 21. ISBN 978-80-244-2785-0. Retrieved 2014-10-25. (Google translate Czech to English) VideoPad Video Editor is...a whole series of programs for creating movies and video clips. This editor supports formats avi, wmv, divx wmv, etc. As is the case with other quality programs for the common video processing, there is a range of effects, titles, captions and music ready to add to your production. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that Czech source, Unscintillating. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the Czech to English translation, using the 42-character Czech alphabet, and correcting what appears to me to be a typo in the original. Here is the untranslated original, including replacing zpravování with zpracování: VideoPad Video Editor je...z celé řady programů pro tvorbu filmů a videoklipu. Tento editor podporuje formáty avi, wmv, divx wmv, aj. Tak jako je tomu i u jiných kvalitnějších programů pro zpracování videa the běžné, i zde je k dispozici řada efektů, titulků, popisků a hudby připravených pro přidání do vytvářeného filmu. Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clickthrough of presented links indicates sufficient sources meeting WP:IRS have been found to warrant inclusion. It's close but passes, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads as marketing --Lfrankbalm (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I prefer greater participation, but this is borderline CSD material, so more votes wouldn't change the outcome. Dennis - 2¢ 21:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smartbox UK[edit]

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

Non notable company, Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I don't see it been the subject of significant coverages in reliable, independent secondary sources. Wikicology (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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 snow close. This doesn't entirely cleanly fall under any speedy category, but this is such a WP:NOT type of page that I can't see where we could work this into a keepable article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for your personal predictions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2014 Predictions[edit]

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

A few people's unsourced predictions of the outcome of a beauty contest/reality show. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#FANSITE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom st170e^talk 19:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Would recommend CSD if one of the criteria were "nonsense" Cannolis (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a blog. This can be published elsewhere but certainly not here. Wikicology (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Chigozie[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: subjects of the articles obviously fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Wikicology (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both play as internationals in the professional Bangladesh Premier League (football). Doesn't that mean that they are notable per WP:FOOTY or doesn't the top 1 pro league in Bangladesh count? That it's not mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues doesn't mean much as it is stated on the page that "The lists are currently incomplete..." - Takeaway (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are playing in Bangladesh Premier League which is a fully professional league since 2009. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support that claim with reliable sources? Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources: BBC: pro since 2006 (perhaps typo?), Daily Sun, Daily Star: "..professional football league", Sports.OnlineNigeria. - Takeaway (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources describe the league merely as professional. They do not confirm full professionalism as is required per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried searching for "amateur" and "semi-pro(fessional)" together with the league name but didn't find anything mentioning these players in the league teams. There was no mention of something along the lines of "so-and-so, although one of the semi-pros, scored a magnificent goal", something which can be expected if it wasn't fully professional. - Takeaway (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that the claim to notability remains unsourced per WP:VNT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as far as I know, there's been no previous discussion of whether this league is fully professional. It certainly claims it's professional. [4] notes salaries of US$2,000 a month - which is about 15 times higher than that countries minimum wage - so one could easily subsist there on that kind of pay. [5] notes that there are transfer fees that have to be paid for an amateur player that joins the professional league. This article [6] discusses the league becoming professional in 2006 and the number of foreign players. This player auction indicates that there is some relatively significant coinage involved [[7]]. Nfitz (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Takeaway and Nfitz passes WP:GNG and Player has played in the 2014 AFC President's Cup and scored the winner in a game .[8],[9] and even otherwise get coverage[10].[11],[12] without taking into the account regional Bengali press coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Takeaway, Nfitz and Pharaoh of the Wizards - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what constitutes notability for footballers and what makes them pass or fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL should be re-examined to avoid instances such as these when articles fall in that grey area.Inter&anthro (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Nfitz. Sources provided certainly seem to indicate that salary levels within the league are sufficient to conclude that it is fully professional, you don't have to be earning £m in order to be in a FPL. Additional links from others to me support this as it is always essentially impossible to find a source that uses the phrase "fully professional". Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - Both are clearly notable fully professional footballers. IJA (talk) 11:04, 25 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Atkins (UK nurse)[edit]

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

The first British woman to receive an experimental vaccine already being tested in other human subjects. This is a WP:BIO1E. She is already covered in cAd3-ZEBOV. Xqxf (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to cAd3-ZEBOV - Marginally notable for one unfortunate event. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has a previous history at NIAID/GSK ebolavirus vaccine (originally Ruth Atkins), which was eventually redirected to cAd3-ZEBOV (I didn't realize that article existed when I was making my confusing set of moves.) Thus a full AfD, though I don't think this changes anything. Xqxf (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Clearly a WP:BLP1E. Article doesn't even try to assert her notability outside the vaccine and it would likely be impossible to do so in any case. Cannolis (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, any vaccine information belongs elsewhere. Basie (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BLP1E and to me, this article is an invasion of privacy. For a similar situation please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Pooley (Ebola patient). I am starting to worry over how many of these there are. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gah, we sound like the Telegraph or Sun. We are not a tabloid. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bio of person who did not die of Ebola. Abductive (reasoning) 15:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP1E; if we can't delete, then Redirect to a notable subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, or simply redirect to cAd3-ZEBOV. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E although there's much coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that WP:BLP1E implies that Wikipedia should not include this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also fails WP:42: despite the broadness of coverage, it appears to be shallow. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone above. Is it snowing yet? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E, then redirect to cAd3-ZEBOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:16, 24 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. KInd of confusing, but the gist of it is that everyone agrees the book is probably notable and this article isn't. Tokyogirl has a head start on a new article to replace this, and what I recommend is that she just either mergehist or delete and overwrite when she feels the new article has a snowball's chance. Or someone else can. For now, I'm going to just punt and close as no consensus, as there is a consensus for this old material (delete) but also a hope it can soon be replaced by something we can all agree on. Dennis - 2¢ 23:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Feminist Anthropology[edit]

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

Advertisement. Non-notable org. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure exactly what this page is about but it doesn't seem to be an organization--there is a book with the same name that has been reviewed in at least a few reliable sources. [13] [14] [15] (the last two are paywalled but came up in Google searches, so I'm assuming they mention this book.) Thus it seems that with a lot of work, this article could be kept if it is rewritten to be about this book. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with information about the book: From what I can tell, the page is supposed to be about a specific area of study in the anthropology field, black feminist anthropology. It is an actual field of study (see here) but so far it's a very underdevloped field and in most cases tends to be lumped together with feminist anthropology or African-American anthropology. I did find information, but so far the lion's share of the coverage for the term has concerned this specific book. I say that we turn this page into an article about the book specifically and include some information about the idea of the specific type of anthropology in a subsection. I have the beginnings of a book article at User:Tokyogirl79/Black Feminist Anthropology and if there's no argument, I'll just cut/paste this to the article. If anyone else wants to do it, I'm perfectly fine with that as well. The problem here is that the specific field of study hasn't received the necessary coverage and the current state of the article is so overly promotional and is such a WP:SOAPBOX that I'm tempted to say that we should just TNT it and move my book article to that space. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do kind of recommend TNTing the article first. This is just so overwhelmingly promotional and such a love fest for the book that I just don't really see any value in leaving it in the article history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with some good revising, this could be a very important article. I understand Tokyogirl79's argument, but I think there is some salvageable work here. I (re)wrote Feminist anthropology from the ground up, and can tell you that this is an important (but divergent) strain in anthropological thought that needs to be represented here (despite its current status as a plug for a book as both Mr. Guye and Tokyogirl79 point out). How about a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH WP:DONOTDEMOLISH love for the first timers? I would happily help do some of the work on this.Thebrycepeake (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebrycepeake: If you can find some sources that talk about this specific branch of anthropology then I'd be all for it. It's just that when I googled the term, the hits were predominantly for this specific book as opposed to the general practice of black feminist anthropology. My biggest concern for the article as a whole is that it's so promotionally written that you will pretty much have to re-write the article from scratch in order to do anything with it. When I made the article for the book in my userspace I found that I couldn't take anything from the article currently in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 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 16:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (replace with information about the book) per indented note, below ~~Comment~~. This is a new area for me, and I'm trying to understand what has been said so far. My impression is that the book meets notability guidelines, but that the current article is so bad, a case could be made that it should be blown up and replaced with Tokyogirl79's version. On the other hand, if the article is to be about the specific field of study, there's an issue of proving notability of that field; unless proof is provided, the article will fail this AfD. If I misunderstood then accept my apologies, and ignore the rest of my statement. If I got it right, wouldn't it be better to use Tokyogirl79's version for this article, and put information about the field of study into the Feminist anthropology article until such time as proof of notability can be gathered? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has come up with any additional reasoning, I vote for deletion of the current article -- blow it up and start over. Tokyogirl79 will presumably then recreate it with the version in their sandbox, but that doesn't require any special action. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article's scope is a bit wonky, but it should be about the book, which is the subject of many reviews.[16][17][18][19] The subfield or research interest of "black feminist anthropology" has less coverage, such that I can't find any independent discussion of the idea as a whole apart from the book. In this way, it appears to be a neologism and any info on the subfield can be included within the discussion of the book. There's no need to delete the article—just cleanup the promotional portions that don't pertain to the book. But overall, the book topic meets the GNG and should be kept czar ♔ 07:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Black Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Politics, Praxis, and Poetics. I find the case that this tome has been reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources compelling reason for inclusion. The information about the lead contributor (likely a living person) is totally unsourced and should be deeply truncated or eliminated entirely to meet BLP. To my eyes, it appears that a connected individual was trying to bring light to the book, and being a connected individual, couldn't limit her or his contributions to the one thing. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 26 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 is no solution here. Tokyogirl is indeed on to something, but Boleyn's wishy-washy answer actually exemplifies what the problem is here. Editors will have so solve this the old-fashioned way. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racist music[edit]

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

This page serves no useful purpose. The redirect to racism is inadequate, but there are no other Wikipedia articles that would be more appropriate. The attempt at turning it into a disambiguation page was also inadequate, because it was not actually disambiguating anything. The original intent of this page, which was to only focus on white racist music, gave an incomplete picture and did not present a world view. It merely duplicated topics and content from Wikipedia articles about different kinds of white racist music. There is no evidence that this page will, or can be transformed into anything that lives up to its title or that is worthy of being a Wikipedia article or list. Also, no Wikipedia articles link to this page because the term racist music does not refer to anything specific. Spylab (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what to do with this. Perhaps it should be turned into a category for the articles listed. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my preferred solution, but would be an acceptable alternative, provided that this title redirected to the new category. For example, as Music hardware redirects to Category:Music hardware. See Category:Redirects to category space for other examples of titles using that solution. I'd rather see someone expand this into an overview of the topic covering all genres, but am not making it a priority to do that myself. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempt at an article was a set index article, i.e., a music-related stub placed in Category:Sociological genres of music. After Spylab reverted me twice, with no edit summary and no engagement on the talk page, I tried compromising on a dab page. Perhaps, as that was my second best option, we could go with a set index instead. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion at Talk:Racist music. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
regarding "no Wikipedia articles link to this page because the term racist music does not refer to anything specific." – No Wikipedia articles link to this page because Wikipedia articles are not supposed to link to disambiguation pages, and I fixed the links to the disambiguation (diff, diff, diff). Wbm1058 (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The term racist music is no more defined than the terms racist film, racist television, racist art or racist literature. There have been examples of racism in all of of those fields in different times and locations throughout the world, but that does not mean that adding the adjective racist in front of those fields describes a specific genre or phenomenon. To try to cobble together an article or list under those titles is to engage in original research. All of the topics that have been listed or discussed in the various versions of this page are already at the article white power music, where they rightly belong. Spylab (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How about we re-title the article to something like List of music considered racist? That would not only be in keeping with articles such as List of films considered the worst, List of sitcoms notable for negative reception, List of television series considered the worst, and List of music considered the worst (among others in Category:Lists of worsts), but it would also allow the article to grow beyond what it is now. The page would, of course, require that the music in question have been specifically cited as racist in various reliable sources in order to be listed on the page. This would take care of the original research angle for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, my reason for suggesting the change of name as opposed to just outright deleting it is that there are quite a few types of music and specific songs that have been considered to be racist and have been the subject of discussion on various reliable sources. I'm kind of actually thinking beyond just saying that this type of music or that type of music is racist, but about an article that would also encompass specific songs that have received controversy for lyrics that people think are racist. Royals (song) is a great example of this and even has an entire section devoted to this at Royals_(song)#Controversy. A page that would allow people to see various songs called this, as well as entire genres of music, definitely has value at Wikipedia. We just need to tweak the phrasing and content a little, is all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other songs that could fall into this page would be Dixie (song), Turkey in the Straw (pretty interesting back story to this one), Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Pick a Bale of Cotton (see this article), and Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport. There are others out there- this is just what I could find using a quick Google search. This has the potential to be a fairly good resource. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while yes- the songs I have listed here have been predominantly white-against-black examples of racism in songs, there's no reason why people can't add other songs that would be seen as racist against any other race or ethnicity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tokoyogirl179, above, is on to something.Cramyourspam (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But then Spylab might want to move that to "List of music considered white power music". Just face it, as of now, "white power music", in its various forms, is the primary topic for "racist music". There is nothing stopping an editor from working to add more balance by adding sourced content about other forms of racist music. Perhaps one can find music in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) where the black majority expresses racism towards the white minority. I don't know, but this is a place where I might look for other forms of racist music. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not a proper disambiguation page, per WP:DABCONCEPT. Somewhat along the lines of Tokoyogirl179's suggestion, I propose moving this to Racism in music and making it into an article describing the existence of racism in various genres of music, with due coverage to each. bd2412 T 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we've already been there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in music. But I can support this, with a redirect of racist music to that title. As I mentioned above, my first attempt at fixing this was a broad concept article stub. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment articles like this are usually trouble, in that, like inherently critical lists, they almost inevitably lead to POV pushing and BLP issues. This really isn't all that different from having an article named List of Known Bigots. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But somehow Wikipedia has managed to handle the "ill-defined" term "ethnic slur", which redirects to List of ethnic slurs. But we have trouble once slurs are set to music? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 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 16:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete if we have racist music all who perform it listen to it or buy it can be reliably sourced as racists. 107.77.75.22 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure / delete valid search term, but this in no way could meet the guidlines for a disambiguation page. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 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. Delete. Additional information does not help case, as two more editors point out. The one is not a reliable source, the other is not relevant--subject will not become notable here as a nurse. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E.B. Brown[edit]

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

not finding anything to notability. References are either self source or brief mention - not the kind of referencing that indicates notability. article states that she (? altho it is fixable, that is an assumption...article does not use any gender specific pronouns) has not won any awards. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Page was updated with additional references to www.jenonline.org and for award the author won in 2010 2010 Nursing Excellence Awards--Kindmonkey (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Kindmonkey (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these references do not support the subject's notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with reddogsix, although I will remark that Beth Sherman seems closer to notability than E.B. Brown, but not quite there yet. She was co-author of one minor paper published in a journal, and won what is essentially an employee of the year award from her employer. The journal article is a start, but she would need to be much more published than that. Also there is the problem of no reliably sourced info that E.B. Brown actually is Beth Sherman. John from Idegon (talk) 22:46, 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 16:14, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Online Academy[edit]

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

I do not consider thisa genuine degree-granting high school; according to its website, it merely offers online courses in one subject, mathematics. I see no evidence that it is notable, and for that matter, I am not even convinced that this organization has any real existence--which in a case like this I interpret to mrsn that they have ever had any students complete a course or even register for one. . DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Web searches failed to turn up coverage from independent and reliable sources, with the exception of their registration with the Ministry of Education. One mere mention, though, is not enough to write an article. Altamel (talk) 22:29, 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 16:13, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junior TV[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. No significant coverages to reliable sources establish its notability. Wikicology (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 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 16:12, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh A. Cagan[edit]

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

Seems to be too soon, when Bandslam is his most notable film tells you something also. Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 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 16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep. Good luck to the editors: y'all got some work to do. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cookson repeater[edit]

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

I originally PROD'd this with the rationale Cool, but unfortunately doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - I can't find any reliable sources on Google. It was dePROD'd by User:Andy Dingley with this reasoning: It's possible that Cookson repeaters aren't notable, but Cookson is as a maker and the Lorenzoni system is a grave omission at WP. My original concerns still stand. ansh666 19:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw if we all agree to rename this to Cookson gun (GBooks gives so much more for this title than the original). ansh666 17:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep So the first source in there, the Victoria & Albert Museum, isn't WP:RS?

This is not a great article - but we are still supposed to work by improving what we have and by discussing, not just blindly reverting other editors and deleting topics we don't understand.

I don't know if this one particular weapon meets encyclopedic notability. Whether its maker, Cookson, does or not depends on whether you subscribe to the theory that Coookson (of London), who seems pretty minor, later emigrated to the US and became the rather better known Cookson of Boston (reputable scholars disagree over this). What is very clear though is that WP coverage of firearms needs an article on the Lorenzoni System that this weapon uses (It was one of the first repeaters to work well - apart from an unfortunate tendency to explode in use). I'm really surprised to see there isn't one yet. As a concrete artefact with a good museum pedigree and entirely adequate sourcing to support its inclusion here, this particular weapon could even form the basis for a Lorenzoni article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that yes, it is reliable, but as a primary source it shouldn't be relied on to base an entire article off of, and generally multiple sources are required to show notability in any case. The last paragraph is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, which is about "this one particular weapon" and not the system that it's based on. ansh666 20:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Whether or not the rifle existed is not the question...Whether or not the sources are adequate is also not the question...The question is whether it's notable or whether it's trivial. While I find it an interesting firearm, I also believe it to be historical trivia. A one of kind firearm, a literal "dead end", whose inventor was struck by lightning while demonstrating his design.--RAF910 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with most of what Andy says and could see this article expanded (and renamed) to cover Lorenzoni with perhaps a section on Cookson. As to the argument of not finding sources, that has more to do with a poorly chosen title. A google search on "Cookson gun" will brng forth more sources that should satisfy notability and RS guidelines.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the other sources today (of the many out there), it seems that the few Lorenzonis in the US were more commonly known as "Cookson guns", after Cookson in Boston. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense. An expansion would require a rename (or separate article), though. ansh666 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Cookson repeater" would actually start to make sense in such a case (maybe US biased over an Italian invention) and would be a more suitable name than the current one is, to the current one weapon scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but we should call it what the sources call it. ansh666 19:32, 1 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 07:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per consensus of discussion above, that there is something notable here, though perhaps should be moved to "Cookson gun" or to "Lorenzoni system" or whatever. All commenters seem to be agreeable to a rename and/or refocus of article. Also check the following searches:

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

No need to delete and start a new article, better to leave the old article's edit history rather than killing it and depriving contributors of credit in moving this topic along. --do ncr am 23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this seems a clear case, as there will also be for the sub-article Lorenzoni System. It would seem entirely reasonable to have redirects to (or from) Cookson gun and Cookson rifle (and possibly even Cookson repeating flintlock) as these could also occur as search terms; perhaps Cookson gun should be the primary name: as others have said, there are plenty of hits for this. Notability doesn't seem in any doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to make Cookson repeater into a redirect to Lorenzoni system or Lorenzoni repeater with Cookson as a section within that. However it should continue as repeater, because that's the whole point of this weapon. Plenty of guns beforehand, not many repeaters. These are interesting too:

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-lorenzoni-repeater.html
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-cookson-repeater.html

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a danger of imposing an editorial(izing) view here; if dull-sounding 'gun' is the usual name, we should use that regardless of how non-innovative it seems to editors, interesting blogspots notwithstanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 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 delete. Consensus is that coverage is not there: one mention in a bloggy zine, one story in a local paper. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sun & Moon Studios[edit]

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

Not notable enough, do not meet WP:CORP Karlhard (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those two sources in the article right now look good, but there's nothing on the video game front (in a WP:VG/RS search with and without the ampersand). czar ♔ 01:07, 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 07:22, 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 16:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to be any notability besides the ones already available. GamerPro64 17:14, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis East[edit]

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

I'm seeing very little online for this person, and he has recent songs. That said, I don't know South African pop music very well, so I don't really know where to look for sources. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 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 16:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of him, and that is giving my age away. The height of his success was long before the internet era. There are a few sources in Google Books if you search for him together with Stingray which was a popular local 80s rock band. Helen Online 14:44, 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. No reliable coverage, and very, very spammy article. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TooSmooth[edit]

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

There are some decent claims to notability, but I don't think they quite add up. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "They dont quite add up"? What links or facts do you find to be false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean they are suspicious. I mean that the claims of notability literally don't add up to a notable subject. I'm not disputing the accuracy here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So an artist that owns his own label and just so happen to be listed with the RIAA, Also being an MTV/VEVO artist and being able to Vote in the Grammys plus being on one of the biggest Spotify playlist isnt notable? Ive seen more mixtape and Youtube artist on here with less of a background then TooSmooth has and yet its taking a very long time for him to be apart of Wiki. Why is that? Willpc17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ The artist has strong credits and there backed up with links, Plus his business has also been credited. The RIAA Its self is a strong enough credit for any Record Label besides the work the label has done for its artist. A National Spotify Playlist Plus VEVO and MTV Features Are Just as Important Today In The Music Industry As Terrestrial Radio Airplay. Its a New Media Age, And This Article speaks on an artist Living in the Digital World! Speedy Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Artist Can Be Found On The Internet And His Links Back Up The Statements Listed In The Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllaBrown64 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — EllaBrown64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Of all the references listed in the article, the only reliable, third party source that I see is this article from the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights), a local paper. In a search for sources, I could come up with little more than sites fueled by user-generated content. I am just not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that is required by WP:GNG. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:04, 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 16:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ If an artist thats only released Mix tapes and Youtube videos can have a Wiki page, TooSmooth should be able to for the fact his apart of the RIAA a VEVO artist and has had videos on MTV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Willpc17: Please stop !voting. You've already !voted twice, which is one time two many. !Voting three times won't affect the outcome though. if you want to add to your original !vote, then please do so, do not !vote again. !Voting more than once misleads users. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Willpc17: The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping an article. When it comes down to it, what matters is whether or not the subject has significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !votes above; only one is allowed. However, you can comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best chance seems to be WP:GNG. Ignoring all the sites selling music, the article doesn't offer much: a local paper's article[20], and a biography that's on a site that also sells music and is still in beta (which is hardly independent or reliable). For a moment, I thought I had found an article on MTV[21], but it turns out to be an area of the web site that is designed to be built and maintained by the artists themselves. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:24, 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. This is a bit tougher because the vote is evenly split, but the keep votes are based on the faulty premise that being an ambassador is automatically notable, or should be notable. The fact is, policy says otherwise, so this part of these votes carry no weight. As for sources that should exist, a sufficient period of time has passed to find them, thus satisfying WP:V that the facts can be verified. They have not been found, so for the purpose of this AFD, we must assume they don't exist. In the end, we have policy based reasoning to delete and no policy based reasoning to keep. Dennis - 2¢ 21:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somphone Sichaleune[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO . ambassadors are not inherently notable (Even being an ambassador to Russia).the only coverage I found is routine coverage confirming he is an ambassador. I also note the article hasn't been updated to reflect that he is now ambassador to Vietnam. but again no evidence of notable work in his role. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like others, I believe that all ambassadors are inherently notable. But ambassadors to major countries such as Russia are even more notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you have searched for in depth coverage of this individual like I did. What was the outcome of this search? LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An important Laotian diplomat, he formerly represented his country to world-power, Russia, and currently is ambassador to their neighbor and former enemy, Vietnam[22]. It appears he was also ambassador to Poland in the past. I presume that more sources are available in Laos, Vietnamese and Russian, but lack skills in those languages to find them. Pburka (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and initial search of his name in Russian reveals mainly directory listings and WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 1 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 08:28, 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 16:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per guideline WP:POLITICIAN, "ambassadorships are not considered international offices." The criterion for inclusion then falls back to having significant coverage. So far, no one has managed to find it. I have failed as well. It's certainly possibly it exists in another language, but we need actual evidence. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:47, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bajrangi Bhaijaan (2015 film)[edit]

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

and through WP:INDAFD: Bajrangi Bhaijaan

While definitely sourcable as a film in pre-production, this one has not yet actually begun filming and so we have a failure of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). It might be spoken of and sourced as an upcoming project in the director's article at Kabir Khan and we can allow its recreation or undeletion when filming begins. And if the author wishes it userfied for continued work as we wait, I'd say "heck yes". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:38, 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 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that the film is in pre-production, I don't see how the current level of press coverage could constitute general notability. As the nom says, of course it could be userfied. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page needs more information, maybe that can derived once the shoot begins. But as of now, there is no update. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 23:48, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming cloud[edit]

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

Essay which appears to be advertisement in disguise, and is otherwise similar in content to Cloud Computing. LS1979 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced article of unclear notability. Apparent fork of Cloud Computing content, with WP:OR and WP:ESSAY issues.Dialectric (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

undelete This is not appears to be advertisement and is not similar in content to Cloud Computing, its derived from that concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.153.133 (talk) 08:37, 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 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoeboxed[edit]

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

No evidence of any special notability. National press quotes are mere mentions - nothing substantive. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with "no evidence of any special notability."

Over 800,000 customers in 100 countries^[1] Offices on 3 continents While press quotes on the page are, in fact, mere mentions, the company has received plenty of national press that are full-on articles, like these: Shoeboxed in Forbes Magazine Shoeboxed in TechCrunch Finally, if Shoeboxed isn't "notable" then Wiki pages for similar companies should also be deleted, as these companies have a similar number of customers, press, notoriety, etc as Shoeboxed. Similar to Shoeboxed with Wiki pages; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DocuSign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreshBooks

Unsigned by Rebekahvossthp

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 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 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just like the nominator, the only national coverage I found consists of a couple of sentences here and there -- nothing in depth. The references in the article do little to help:
- The Forbes reference is not to the regular site, but rather to the "contributors" section. More than 2,500 people contribute articles, and are paid based on traffic to their pages. Forbes notes that "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Thus, there's no repuation for fact checking, and it's not a reliable source.
- TechCrunch may be better than the Forbes item, but I'm worried by the site's comment "Information provided by CrunchBase". CrunchBase is like IMDb in that its data is contributed by anyone who registers. A moderator reviews the data, and editors are supposed to keep the data updated, but it still wouldn't qualify as a reliable source.
- Other sources in the article are no better: blogs, an advertising platform and the previously mentioned CrunchBase. Many references don't even seem to be true references, e.g., "Tobi Walter – COO and Co-Founder of Shoeboxed.com September 9, 2013"; I gather that's a claim that Tobi Walter made a statement on that date, but I'm not going to spend more time trying to track it down.
- A few references are to reliable sources, but don't show notability. For example, there's reference "A Small Business Made to Seem Bigger The New York Times Zimmerman, Eilene. March 2, 2011" (by the way, it would have been nice to include a link to the online version at [23]). This article mentions Shoeboxed only briefly (in three sentences); that's hardly in-depth coverage. I have the same type of comment for the mashable article (which can be found at [24]): it's a numbered list of 13 items, with Shoeboxed getting two small paragraphs.
- There's in depth coverage in reference "Review: Shoeboxed vs Receipt Bank and Why They Fall Short. DigitalFirst.com", but I don't think it's a reliable source: it appears to be operated by a single individual. I found it ironic that the review was disparaging (although that doesn't matter). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:39, 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 BtoB (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yook Sungjae[edit]

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

The subject of this article seems to get most of his notoriety through his band BtoB, not on his own account. If so, that does not warrant a separate article and a redirect to BtoB will be sufficient. Beside that, the article is poorly sourced and his filmography is rather fluffy and totally unsourced (if relevant at all) The Banner talk 12:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BtoB (band), as per the guidelines: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:05, 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 15:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BtoB. I don't speak Korean, but sources definitely exist. The issue is that my translations of [25] are awful and that I can't seem to find news articles about the individual rather than the band. (This said, the kowp version of the article doesn't have sources either.) He has some kind of celebrity with a 20k-follower fansite Twitter account and a 242k-follower personal account (though that isn't coverage in reliable sources, it also doesn't even point to individual news articles). It's normal to merge to the parent topic when there are no available sources, as this is a fine redirect term. But, in the future, when outright deletion is not a plausible outcome and redirecting is reasonable, discuss it on the talk page and go for it boldly. AfD is only for deletion discussions where an article might be feasibly deleted altogether. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 04:43, 25 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 BtoB (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Peniel[edit]

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

The subject of this article seems to get most of his notoriety through his band BtoB, not on his own account. If so, that does not warrant a separate article and a redirect to BtoB will be sufficient. The Banner talk 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This NOM has mass AfDed several of the individual band members on the same basis. We are dealing with a boy band in Korea, so media habits are not the same. There is a ton of what wikipedia would regard as non-reliable source material about them, Facebook, tumblr, pinterest, blogs that are the kind of new media you would expect around such a group. What I am saying is there is no question about their notability. Normally the members of the boy bands I am familiar with do get their own individual articles but in the haste to delete this one, Peniel individually worked as a VJ for a popular K-Pop show. That distinguishes him from just the group's activities and makes him individually notable. Trackinfo (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, these "mass nominations" only counts three nominations. Could you please assume good faith and stop following me around on almost every article I nominate? The Banner talk 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BtoB (band), as per the guidelines: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:04, 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 15:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as User:Dylanfromthenorth said above. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 20:52, 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. Another case where I prefer more participation, but the amount of research done convinces me that it wouldn't matter if 100 more people voted, we would still be deleting. Dennis - 2¢ 20:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell James[edit]

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

I am unable to find reliable sources to demonstrate that this man meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC.

The name, unfortunately, is not that uncommon, even when connecting to the region. The albums are all self-produced, so far as I can see, and I don't find any sign that "E-C Mix Records" is a notable production company. As far as I can tell, this article has been the work of a single-purpose account. That in itself is not reason to delete, but I'm afraid that there is a clear conflict and this article may be entirely promotional and unreliable. See the archived version of his official bio, which includes "In March of 2013, Darrell James bio-article got published and has been included in the data entry of the worldwide publication of Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), proving that his career and works are important achievements and is worthy to be known by the world." (This is still visible on his site, but I have archived in case it is removed.) I have removed some uncited material or material without reliable citation from the article (which needs more cleanup) and am concerned that some of the information at the official site may not meet our verifiability standards - for instance, it claims "He is an Eight (8) time AWIT Awards Nominee for Best Producer." Our article specifically called out Truefaith’s "Memories Are Cheap"" as one of the albums for which he was purportedly nominated as "Best Producer". I did find one unusable source that says True Faith won best creative album package for that album. Allmusic, at least, doesn't mention this man in connection with that album at all - the sole producer is listed as the band. (Unfortunately, AMG lists no technical staff for these two albums, also name checked. But even if he is the producer of all three of them, that doesn't necessarily equate to WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC) I also removed a claim that he was "partly responsible for the Philippine market success of international artists such as" (long list of notables) as unsourced, and I removed a claim that he spearheaded and was "Co-Producer" of a Fra Lippo Lippi album. The linked source verifies that he was a project manager. But, again, this in itself is insufficient to meet notability requirements.

I will happily withdraw my nomination if somebody is able to demonstrate notability, although the content will need to be modified to meet WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 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 15:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and it looks like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. That's some kind of jackpot, MRG. Well done you, SW3 5DL (talk) 03:05, 24 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CHKS Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable company/organisation Witty lama 13:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added this reference http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287682/CHKS-Is-company-paid-help-NHS-hide-death-rates.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the author of the article 's edit history has the distinct pattern of someone working for the company spamming the relevant articles with links to that company (and now creating an article about it too). Witty lama 15:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the creator is not the only one spamming Hospital accreditation —teb728 t c 22:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I'd got to this first, I would have tagged for speedy as spam

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 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 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#G11. I have no idea of why the page was not tagged for speedy deletion under CDS#G11. Wikicology (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G11. Yep, should been speedy deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 24 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin O'Halloran[edit]

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

Delete: notability not acquired solely through victimology, as is well-established. Quis separabit? 21:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written article, but notable subject, covered in multiple reliable sources. "Founder and leading light of the Kiltullagh branch of the Land League"; "a dangerous and ill-disposed man, and president of the Kilfalla branch of the Land League"; "P.J. Gordon, Scrab Nally, Martin O'Halloran and other celebrated men"; "the next speech the witness referred to was one by the same Martin O'Halloran" etc. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential article is not the article which exists. The article as it currently exists is largely centered, IMO, on the killing of the subject, and would not have been written had it not been for his having been shot dead. Clearly, not every Land Leaguer in every county in Ireland was inherently notable. However, if an article can be fashioned which demonstrates that O'Halloran was notable in and of himself aside from the circumstances of his death, I can withdraw this nomination. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article again. It makes no mention whatever of his death, and never has. There is not even a date of death. In any case, I have established notability so there are no grounds for deletion, only for improvement. Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I conflated the killings issue re O'Halloran from the Connors & Dempsey murders (which I had tweaked at the same time) in my rationale above but not in the article itself, thankfully. Thanks for bringing that back to my attention so I could explain here. Quis separabit? 13:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I Agree with Scolaire, article needs improvement, but subject is notable per references mentioned above.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire: I usually withdraw any contested AFD nomination if the article in question has been significantly improved. In this case, while the article has been somewhat enhanced, I would prefer to wait for more input from our fellow editors. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Scolaire linked to a nonviewable ref and a few passing references. I do not see WP:BIO satisfied at this point. Edison (talk) 20:32, 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 15:44, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination, because 1) the first keep !vote does not provide sources to qualify the assertion of modest notability, and 2) the second keep !vote only provides one source (which they added to the article). Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources are required to establish notability. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Ackamoor[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:ARTIST doubtful. bender235 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep we do not delete articles that need cleanup. He seems to be an international touring entertainer of some modest notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added a reference to support notability. Inwind (talk) 08:13, 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 15:38, 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 15:39, 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. The rationales for keeping are simply not strong enough to overcome a strong (and continued) reason for deletion. Dennis - 2¢ 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japoñol[edit]

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

The article was deleted per AfD in 2010 as a non-notable neologism. It was apparently re-created in 2012, but there is no evidence that it has become notable in the meantime. The three sources offered are dead links (and the two whose intended target I can surmise are dictionaries). No hits in Google News and only six in Google books (at least one of which appears to be a web scrape from Wikia). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It receives detailed treatment in this book: [26] and this paper: [27], as well as numerous mentions in other sources including about six other books as noted above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we took the treatment in Haciendo Amigos (a reprint of a 2005 blog post) at its word, we would have to conclude that japañol is WP:MADEUP. ("Tres chicos de Peru, con ascendencia nipona, han inventado el japañol." Three young men from Peru with Japanese ancestry have invented japañol.) I do not, however, take that piece at its word. The conference paper "Hip Hop en japoñol" seems to be more reliable, but it is about the effects of transmigration between South America and Japan on music and culture, not about language. If there is "detailed treatment" of this language variety, I missed it. Cnilep (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that the language is not the primary subject of that article, but there is substantial discussion of it there nonetheless. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've downloaded the paper and read it. The most substantial discussion of japañol is in two paragraphs on pages 13–14. But the japañol discussed there is not a "mixed language" as the Wikipedia article describes. "El japoñol como su nombre sugiere, es la mezcla del japonés y el español. ... se tome como base la gramática castellana a la cual se le insertan palabras en japonés. ... revela la incorporación de una cultura, en este caso la japonesa". (Japoñol, as the name suggests, is a blend of Japanese and Spanish. ... into a base of Spanish grammar some Japanese words are inserted ...it reveals the incorporation of a culture, in this case the Japanese culture.) That is a description of individual interlanguage and perhaps code switching as an expression of ethnic identity, not a system akin to Spanglish (notwithstanding the comment that "japoñol, spanglish y japonés" (p. 15) are used together as an expression of immigrant identity), much less a true mixed language. The examples — e.g. "A la abuela le decíamos obaachan" (For grandmother we say obaachan) — in no way resemble the ganbateando blending described in the Wikipedia article. At best, that looks like a case for WP:TNT. But I still don't concede that two articles, even if they did verify the content, would establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On page 13 several words are listed which are specifically used in "japoñol," which indicates that it is a mixed language, not interlanguage or code-switching phenomenon which would have a vocabulary special to an individual speaker. The rapper L. K. is quoted as saying "el japoñol es nuestro idioma, es lo que siempre escuchamos en la casa." (Japoñol is our language, it's the one we always hear at home.) Granted, this is an incidental quote, but it leads me to believe that this is a mixed language with common words used by different people, not just ad hoc switching. By the way, can you really TNT a stub? --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not look like substantive coverage to me, a reprinted blogpost and a conference paper. Still very much a non notable neologism.01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 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 15:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For any two countries/languages, there are people with a background from those two countries, who use bits of two languages in their speech. Unless there is clear evidence of a distinct and established "mixed language" (evidence for the existence of any of which seems extremely flaky) with an established name, there is no basis for an article. In particular, this article contains two example words, one of which is simply a loan word (ironically translated into a French loanword in English), the other of which looks grammatically dubious (ganbaru is the plain verb; I guess that 'ganbateando' means "Go at it!" or similar, which would be ganbatte). This stuff really has no value. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a made up word and no notable is already using it. Frmorrison (talk) 16:33, 24 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. Consensus is quite clear. Dennis - 2¢ 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Caygill[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ^ - EvilLair (talk to me!) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG and NFOOTY. Banana Fingers (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails both relevant inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTY, and WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:05, 25 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. Mabulu has cleaned up the article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles & Keith[edit]

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

This article has been tagged with multiple issues, none of which seem to have been addressed in over a year. The largest of which, in my opinion, is that this "article" is simply an advert for the company. Onel5969 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charles & Keith seems like a notable and popular company in Singapore in particular, but elsewhere also. Parts of the article read a bit like an advertisement, but it wouldn't take much to fix these bits or just remove them from the article. The article having multiple issues is not, in itself, a valid reason for deletion. FF20 1 0 15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FF2010. While I agree with the concept that the company is notable, this article reads almost completely like an advert. And you're right that it could be fixed. The issue becomes that this issue has been flagged for over a year, and no fix has been done. If the article were fixed, I would have no issue with it. The problem is that how long does WP allow an advertisement to sit on the site? Onel5969 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment - I have to note that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup seems to fit here. The article is a mess, but we've got fantastic sources from The Japan Times and Forbes.com among others in the references so it definitely seems notable. It's not really appropriate to use the deletion process as a clean-up. Mabalu (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - again, see my comment above, which would come under the heading of WP:NOTADVERTISING. I followed the essayWikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup in nominating this article for deletion, in the hopes that it would spur folks to clean up the article. But I also think that Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup is just as valid. If the article is not cleaned up as a result of this discussion, I think that it should be removed. Onel5969 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Charles @ Keith is a lovely change from the extortianately expensive well known brands and my wife loves their high quality and fashionable products. Having just bought 3 pairs of shoes and a lovely handbag in the branch at Terminal 21 at Bangkok I think she would be really offended by the thought of deleting the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSaBumrungsri (talk • contribs) 15:38, October 18, 2014‎

MarkSaBumrungsri is a new account created after this deletion discussion was started, and with no other edits. Meters (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For attention of Onel5969 - I have cleaned up and wikified the article. I actually did not do any additional research - I simply used the URLS that were already given in the text, checked them, and based my edits on the existing text. No real additional research was carried out and no major edits were made other than cleaning up the cites/URLS and throwing out anything obviously promotional/nonencyclopaedic. I'm still sceptical as to whether it was appropriate to bring this to AFD, but I think there is now no reason for this to be under threat of deletion. IMO, I don't see why a basic clean-up and quick check through the sources couldn't have been done before nomination - especially because at second glance, there was clearly a good solidly cited article under there. Mabalu (talk) 17:09, 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 speedy keep per WP:INDAFD. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bijanbari College[edit]

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

This Article does not seem to meet any notability requirements WP:ORG WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. It has only one reference and it is a primary source. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD

Keep - Recognised degree-awarding college. We invariably keep these. Being a bad or poorly sourced article is not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:INDAFD). — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - same as reasons as above.
~~Weak Merge~~Comment - I may have made an error in my interruption of WP:INDAFD but I see no where in it that this qualifies to be kept at the most it should merged into University of North Bengal but I can find 0 independent sources for it to be standing as it's own article. WP:INDAFD Doesn't actually give specific notability requirements for colleges except to meet above mentioned guidelines.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Striken, Mcmatter has previously voted while nominating Afd. Changed to Comment. --— CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Merging would be appropriate only if we know that it is managed by the University of North Bengal. The Colleges in India are typically managed independently from the Universities. See the category "Colleges affiliated to University of North Bengal" for a list of such colleges. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused, are you saying that this college is managed independently from the University of North Bengal even though it is affiliated with them and that makes it notable enough for it's own article. Looking through some of the colleges in this category I am not seeing a lot of information that couldn't be served just as well with a table or list instead of all these stub articles with almost nothing in them.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is called "affiliation" in India is equivalent to what might be called "franchising" in the West. It is a separate organisation that educates students for degrees awarded by a University. So, merging articles would be inappropriate. I agree that the quality of the article is poor and it needs to be tagged appropriately. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the only reason for deleteion would be if we believe that the College doesn't exist. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So with the affiliation(franchising) the college is not interdependently accredited which means WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does apply to these colleges, Otherwise the guideline only refers to Nursery-XII schools. I do apologize if I am becoming aggravating I am trying to make sure I understand so I don't nominate any more if there is a previous consensus)- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"independently accredited" probably means the same as what I meant by "independently managed." An accreditation of the University of North Bengal does not automatically accredit all its "affiliated" colleges. They need to be accredited separately. A degree college falls under a "degree-awarding institution" (as opposed to a polytechnic or a tutorial college). Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a non-independent college is the Osmania Arts College. That page should be merged into its parent institution Osmania University. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an Recognized degree awarding college affiliated to the University of North Bengal which is a Affiliating university and not a single campus University [28].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the explanation given by Pharaoh of the Wizards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:17, 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. Another case where more participation might be preferred, but the outcome wouldn't be changed. Dennis - 2¢ 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Showbread Bootlegs[edit]

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

A discography of unofficial recordings. The references all appear to be copyright violations (handheld recordings of copyrighted works) and WP:PRIMARY sources that require interpretation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a list of copyright infringements posted to YouTube. That is not an appropriate subject for an article unless these specific videos have been the subject of significant critical commentary. I see no evidence that that is the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 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. While the participation is not as great as I would prefer, I trust the research of the participants and it seems clear that greater participation wouldn't change the outcome. Dennis - 2¢ 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese Sex Show[edit]

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

I am not sure what this article is about. It sounds like there was a project by this name linked to an album called Apocalypso by Kool Keith. But neither his article nor his discography mention the album or the project. Orphaned and unreferenced, it might be WP:OR Gbawden (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article isn't instructive so I did some digging on google. They appear to be a small time band that has been around for 10 years or so. They have released music small time too. What I didn't find were any third party web pages that could be used as a ref, for example from music review journals. I watched a video of there's on youtube, it has had 3,000 views since 2009 and had a single comment which was "this is gay" - I dread to think what the comment would be if they'd seen there official website. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 25 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. Textbook case of applying WP:NFF Dennis - 2¢ 20:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idhayam Murali (2015 film)[edit]

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

Filming has not yet begun, does not meet WP:NFF, recommend redirection to I. Mueenuddin Ahmed BOVINEBOY2008 10:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per WP:NFF, you can delete this article and include the movie in filmography of the related artists. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:48, 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Gonano[edit]

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

hasn't played a professional senior game. fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS --SuperJew (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:05, 25 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) 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria's Secret models[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced list that does not provide any additional information other than nationality (which is also unsourced, frequently debated, and not generally relevant for models). Tgeairn (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are problems with the list that the nom brings up, but none that merit deletion as far as I can tell. It needs sources, but even a brief gsearch returns a lot, suggesting it easily passes GNG. Nationality might not be necessary and other information would be good, but neither are cause to WP:BLOWITUP. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - no need for flags and sources are available. Zambelo; talk 06:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Zambelo is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. 80.168.165.101 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While agreeing with nominator about problems, I agree with Rhododendrites that they're fixable and not in any way grounds for deletion. Not sure if sources are needed for each entry here, since each name is wikilinked to another article which (presumably) does have sources. Further, nationality is, for some persons, a noteworthy piece of data for each model -- tells something about their story; further, it is possible that the list (essentially a database) could be expanded with other information in future, such as height, age, other information. Last, while an unofficial measure of course, consider that this article is heavily read averaging over 1000 pageviews per day, meaning that readers read this page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly reasonable list of notable people. References would be nice but no reason to delete this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 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 speedy keep: nomination withdrawn, no arguments for deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 22:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerskins[edit]

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

~~A single reliable source that is actually about Wade Michael Page, not in-depth coverage of the group. Tgeairn (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note that Fuebaey has significantly improved the sourcing at the article and I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion. I have no objection to a speedy keep or to allowing this AfD to run its course. If allowed to run, my !vote should be considered as Neutral. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep best organized neonazi hategroup in the us accordign to anti defam. league + spl centre and mentioned in a hundred newspaper articles + books and you question its notability + want the article deleted lol is this a joke 40.140.124.77 (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mental roots of sexual orientation[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not properly defined. What is "Mental roots of sexual orientation" meant to be exactly? It's not uninteresting that some researchers think that children hearing the pitch of a man or a woman's voice is relevant to the development of sexual orientation, but why would that one idea deserve an article unto itself, instead of being mentioned briefly in an article such as Sexual orientation? I suppose that the article could be renamed something like, "Voice in the development of sexual orientation", to better identify its subject, but I still see no reason why that subject would deserve its own article, as it would not meet WP:NOTE. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep frivolous nom, gng met + topic established all's in article text, read it + also read sexual orientation, keyword for you = auditory 40.140.124.77 (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous? Hardly. The article begins, "A theory about the development of sexual orientation and sexual arousal suggests that these behavior patterns are learned unconsciously from asexual experiences during childhood." If it were a genuinely noteworthy subject, the "theory" would at least have a name, though apparently it doesn't. How can the subject be notable if no one has even bothered to give it a name? The name "Mental roots of sexual orientation" is hopelessly over-broad, and certainly isn't appropriate to an article focusing on the response of young children to the sound of adult's voices. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perusal of sources indicates coverage and a significant amount of discussion of the topic. — Cirt (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think that the topic - the proposed way in which the response of infants to the sound of male and female voices contributes to the development of sexual orientation - is notable? I find that surprising. Would you support a change in the article's name, then? The current name does not usefully indicate the article's actual topic. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, a change in the article's name would be fine. — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cirt - you say there is a "a significant amount of discussion of the topic". What is the topic? If it's "the sound of male and female voices contributes to the development of sexual orientation" then can you link to any sources other than the two works by Yehuda Salu of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Howard University, who I suspect started this article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—The notability of this article rests on two publications by Salu: the first is WP:PRIMARY and has been cited all of five times, and the other I'm not able to locate at all (listed ISBN is not in worldcat). The rest of the cites are perfectly respectable but don't address the subject of the article. Not seeing how this is anything other than WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fringe hypothesis only published by one author in the journal Medical Hypotheses (that's right, it's a hypothesis not a theory) and in a self-authored book. These two works provide the only basis for this article. I see no support for this hypothesis since publication in 2010. The article is a split from Sexual_orientation#Auditory_system, a subsection of Sexual_orientation#Causes. This section needs serious reworking, if not deleting, as it features only the dubious hypothesis described here and then three paragraphs on the correlation between auditory systems and sexuality which has nothing whatever to do with the causes of sexuality.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable fringe idea that is not even wrong. Despite its wall of text and citations, it's still original research. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article that actually claim to support this theory are poor: a journal created for and known for publishing fringe theories, and a self-published book by the same author. The reliable sources in the article are generally cited to support other claims such as sex difference in ear and brain structure, not sexual orientation differences. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The RS content present in article can be briefly mentioned in Sexual_orientation#Causes, where it can be balanced by other competing theories. The one theory presented here does not warrant a stand alone article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 per the author's request. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Carnegie[edit]

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

one of a pair of promotional articles about non notable activists--see adjacent afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per blanking of the page by the creator and only substantive editor. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Carnegie[edit]

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

one of a pair of promotional articles about non notable activists--see adjacent afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 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 withdrawn

Leslie Dick[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. She wrote some books, and also contributes to X-Tra Arts Quarterly, some sort of artist newsletter. She also collaborated with Martin Kersels. She is not regarded as an important figure, has not pioneered any new art styles, hasn't written any really good books, and also hasn't been significantly acclaimed, thereby failing WP:AUTHOR.

According to WP:NACADEMICS, she'd have to make a big contribution to her area of study, (hasn't happened), get a highly prestigious award (no awards), has to be an elected member of a highly prestigious organization (X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly doesn't really apply). X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly isn't a well respected academic journal. The only criteria I can think of is criteria 6 (which states that if the person was at a highest level at an institution that person is notable), although Leslie Dick is a program co-director, meaning that she is not the highest level at the institution of CalArts, rather a co-director of one of the programs, of which the program's actual director is Tom Leeser.

As well, the references provided don't significantly cover Leslie Dick, with the first and second sources (X-Tra arts and CalArts) being affiliated, and the third source being a recounting/story of an experience she had in the city once (primary source as well as presumably partially written by Leslie Dick). The fourth source is other author "reviews" of her book (no editorial control). The fifth and sixth sources are Kirkus reviews of her books, which may allow it to pass WP:BKCRIT if you have an extremely liberal interpretation of that policy. The WP:BKCRIT states however, there must be multiple, independent, reviews of the subject, of which some must be more of a plot summary. I only see Kirkus Reviews, and the first is only a glorified plot summary, and openly admits that it doesn't analyze it. The second book, "The Skull of Charlotte Corday", also only has this one Kirkus review.

The seventh source just states that she contributed to a book about another author. The eight source also falls very short, simply stating she collaborated with Martin Kersels, a kind of notable artist who is another co-director at CalArts. In the ninth source, it is simply a promotional piece for a museums exhibition of an experimental slideshow of some sort. The tenth source, Seven Days in the Art World, is quite literally a 3 paragraph interview with Leslie Dick, about the art world. Pretty much a quotation.

Taking the WP:NACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:AUTHOR notability criterions into account (of which Dick fails all of them), as well as the inability of the included sources to evidence the notability of Leslie Dick, combined with a lack of non affiliated sources about Leslie Dick, leads me to conclude that there is a lack of notability of Leslie Dick for the foreseeable future. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since nomination, another source (7) has been added to the article. The source is a Washington Post review, and therefore would only effect the notability of the book it is reviewing. This also throws off the order of the sources in my AfD statement. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more publishers weekly reviews have been added, one (for the Kicking) is little more than a plot summary. The other one, however, has a little more depth, and is about The Skull of Charlotte Corday. I would still state that The Skull of Charlotte Corday is the only work by Dick that may be notable. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable author and critic. More sources have been added and the article now has links to substantive coverage of a number of her works in multiple reliable sources. And there are more in sources not freely available on the internet, such as reviews of her first book in the London Review of Books [29] and the American Book Review [30]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After major changes to the article (thanks, User:Arxiloxos), I am now fairly sure Dick is notable. Therefore, I withdraw my nomination.Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turinah[edit]

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

Another non-notable longevity claimant. This claim has no lasting notability. No sources have appeared for this person since June 2010 when they first appeared. Appears only to be "notable" for the one-event of popping up in 2010 to claim the WOP title. Article also raises doubts about this persons age (EG Documents conveniently burnt in 1965 and having given birth at 49). CommanderLinx (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E, if you could call WOP an 'event.' Fails WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turinah is a possible oldest person ever. Mirno (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Care to explain how she is "not non-notable?" CommanderLinx (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same as last time, BLP1E and an unsubstantiated claim to be the world's oldest person, which is far short of what is needed to pass the criteria for inclusion here. Dennis - 2¢ 20:34, 25 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Phone 8 devices[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices, "Article is an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness", Wikipedia is not a product comparison service. Categories are a preferred method of organization in this manner. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What about List of iOS devices? i agree that with Android and Windows, it's more difficult to track down all devices from all OEMs. With Windows Phone 7, however, the dust is already settled. The amount of devices released was limited and heavily controlled, so that list can stay. As for Windows Phone 8, the initial release (8.0) worked much in the same way, with tight device control. What concerns me is that from 8.1 onward, pretty much any device (including former Android devices) can be adapted for Windows Phone. In such a case, non-notable devices should be excluded from the list. i'd certainly keep a Windows Phone 7 list alive, and maybe 8.0 if distinction from 8.1 is required, but i wouldn't remove the lists altogether. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but restrict to items with an explicit Wikipedia article. Per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is free to index its own contents but it is not a directory of everything that exists. Items with a red link or no working internal like are erased. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If making such restriction, I suggest replacing the article with a category. That way it will (1) be updated more automatically and (2) be clear that it's only for Wikipedia pages, not for listing everything.

Comment I started List of Windows Phone 7 devices because editors were repeatedly making the mistake of adding these to the List of Windows Mobile devices article (and I had to keep reverting these edits, pointing out that Windows Mobile is not the same as Windows Phone). I made the List of Windows Mobile devices article for people who need to acquire an old Windows Mobile device to run software that is still not available for the newer Windows Phone platform, so I didn't want the confusion of having Windows Phone 7 devices listed in the same article (I had already seen one individual mistakenly purchase a Windows Phone 7 device when she wanted to run a particular Windows Mobile application and incorrectly thought Windows Phone was "the same thing"). If however Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for such data, then feel free to delete the original List of Windows Mobile devices as well as the spin-off lists, as I'm happy to place this data on my personal home page instead, where the search engines will hopefully still find it. (I already have an opinionated variant List of vaguely usable Windows Mobile phones.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG seems like the relevant piece of policy. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Windows 8 and RT tablets for a similar discussion. If we delete I'd be happy to put this data on my home page instead. With this edit, I'm adding List of Windows Mobile devices to the above list of lists under discussion here. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list of Windows Phone 8.1 devices is an important part of the larger group of WP articles. It provides information that is more than just a list, but gives readers a comprehensive overview of each device running a specific version of Windows Phone. The number of devices running WP is still small enough that the list doesn't go on forever, like it would for Android. Also, this list is already complete as of the moment. There aren't any devices missing. If new devices are announced, they are usually added within a few days. Using your logic, we shouldn't have pages listing presidential candidates or polling results because those lists may "never be complete". EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EndlessCoffee54: Hi. "Oppose" is ambiguous. It might be taken as "oppose deletion", and the article might get merged. Please stick to the standard practice of recommending a verdict. (e.g. "Keep", "delete", "redirect" or "merge") You can find good advices in WP:AFD. Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per True Tech Talk Time it seems reasonable to keep these articles if the List of iOS devices is to stay (I'd be concerned by the possibility of an edit war should the deletion occur). Unless you want to nominate EVERY article that exists on Wikipedia regarding "List of (Insert name of Operating System) Devices" - and there is one on Wikipedia for pretty much every mobile OS that has existed bar the deleted one for Android - then I can't see a reason to delete the lists. And while I can't answer for the List of Windows Mobile devices page, I'd add that the assertion that the article "can't ever aim for completeness" is wrong in the case of Windows Phone lists. Both the List of Windows Phone 7 devices and List of Windows Phone 8 devices are complete. As for the List of Windows Phone 8.1 devices article, I've been keeping track of additions to it, to the best of my knowledge every announced device that is intended to be shipped as a consumer device is listed (i.e. developer only/prototype devices have not been included or have been removed). Ian Devlin (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why was the Android one singled out, then? ViperSnake151 Talk 00:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Very good question. Why indeed? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that it reasonable to keep a list of devices (along the lines of iOS lists mentioned above), the fact that it may never be complete is hardly an issue to me because the encyclopedia will never be complete. Further, red links are how the encyclopedia grows as they show where new content can be created and where we have holes. Removing items without an article prevents growth as it acts as a subject/topic does not exist where it may be notable but just not yet created. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Similar articles for other OSes are kept. MameTozhio (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by under A10 by Tawker (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Cunha[edit]

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

Contains biography of a person which appears to be completely false from the cited sources. Both the referenced sources say the person is hailing from Mangalore, but Wiki article says from Rajasthan. Source says started practice from 1985 whereas the Wiki article says 1973. It appears the person has nothing to do with Rajasthan but the Wiki article contains about 4 paragraphs about details from Rajasthan. Niri M / ನಿರಿ ^(Talk) 11:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Michael D'Cunha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.175.156 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin for speedy deletion of this page John_Michael_Cunha and merge with the John Michael D'Cunha Prodigyhk (talk) 02:52, 1 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 08:26, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & improve - (WP:INDAFD) Even poorly sourced articles sometime can be notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Michael D'Cunha .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:31, 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qaster[edit]

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

The author self identifies as developer of the product [31], and in the permissions granted on the logo File:Qaster.jpeg. It's been speedied twice before, and is a re-hash of Wiv labs (also speedied twice). Blatant self promotion. Bazj (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is more information coming soon on Qaster's wikipedia page. Citations and references will be added in accordingly. The page is also being linked from other Wikipedia articles in relevant fields. This is not for promotion, it is to include and add in useful information for people browsing wikipedia for topics related to Q&A, Search, Startups, etc.

I was alerted about some confusion occurring with this article entry. I would like to make it very clear that I am not a developer/creator of Qaster. I do work in the startup technology world and am putting together a blog/service that features different emerging startup tech companies. I am working on adding in wikipedia information for the other companies as well. I feel it's important to add more content on wikipedia about useful services like theses ones that don't get much light shined on them. There's around 6 sources right now supporting content in the Qaster wikipedia article. Would it be better to add in more content inside the article related to Qaster or add in more citation sources from the internet which report on its services? Just trying to learn and be cooperative here and hope someone can help.. thank you. Michaelgr43 (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your association with this firm further, given that you wrote elsewhere that "people ... ask us why we have a blank page" [32]? AllyD (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and that you claim on Commons to be the copyright holder of the product logo c:File:Qaster.jpeg and the company logo c:File:WIV Labs.jpeg? Bazj (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the product logo, I have been given their permission to use the product logo. I can clear up what I meant in the previous message about my interest in startups and working on my blog. I am focusing specifically on South Korean startups that primarily use English. There is a very large startup economy over there and it is doing well. I've done research and am continuing to do more on the whole startup technology scene over there.. I've found that there are some very interesting companies. I was simply trying to add in information about these companies on Wikipedia because I think people will be interested in them and think it's a shame that many Koreans who work in the English startup scene don't get a fair chance to utilize the English version of Wikipedia. As I mentioned a few weeks back, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn how to correctly enter the best possible entry that I can, following the guidelines. To answer the other question, I said people ask "us" why "we" have a blank page because that was the response I was getting over and over from speaking to different startup employees over there through my research. They clearly are interested in being apart of the encyclopedia but don't really know how. All of the other startups I'd like to add in have credible citations as well. Thank you Michaelgr43 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI artice on a recent start-up venture, with normal start-up postings as references. No evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:15, 24 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Bryan[edit]

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

No substantial notability. Fastest growing is very easy for a small company, & I usually translate it as "not yet notable" And I tend to regard an article describing the subject as a "serial entrepreneur" to be promotional puffery. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)� DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither the individual nor the company have significant coverage about them in third party reliably published sources. Bryan has been quoted and interviewed a couple of times, but there has been no third party profile that isnt primarily Bryan about Bryan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and RedPenofDoom. Lots of these start-ups open pages here to make themselves appear notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:17, 24 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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arp 173[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not in a catalogue of note, not discovered before 1850, and not visible to the naked eye. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. Existing is not the same as notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. It is a a galaxy but it doesn't appear notable outside Cal Tech. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:13, 24 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 Procedural close. Categories are discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian people of American descent[edit]

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

There is only one person in category:American emigrants to Armenia. And because they are American emigrants to Armenia, it does not mean they are Armenian of American descent, but rather American (since that is their nationality) of Armenian descent. Hovhannes Karapetyan 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy close - wrong forum. Deletion for categories is discussed at Categories for discussion, not AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Gene93k, but on the merits, the nominator has it backwards. American emigrants to Armenia become Armenian people of American descent. (By WP convention, the "FOO emigrants to GOO" categories are always housed within the "GOOian people of FOOian descent" categories—compare all the other similar categories in Category:Immigrants) This does not imply a change of citizenship, but rather nationality, which is either citizenship or where a person lives permanently. If a person lives permanently in Armenia, they are regarded as an Armenian national, regardless of what citizenships they hold. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 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.

^ https://www.shoeboxed.com/about/

[1] ttps://www.shoeboxed.com/about/

[1]