Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 October	22 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cerebellum (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Grant (publicist)[edit]

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

This is an CV, not a biographical article. Looks to be designed to mention as many famous names as possible to hide the real person. Notability unclear. The Banner talk 20:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This guy has quite a history, not just as a publicist, his recent career, but as a celebrity journalist for People Magazine, Life Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, by lines any one of which most journalists would love to promote. Enough that there was a 2011 book written about him, some of it sourced from this wikipedia article. This article is well sourced, though many sources refer to print publications. I have yet to bop over to the local library to verify these, but I have already added a few sources that back up statements made here. I assume their veracity. The sources in this article, though they were masked by brackets, are high quality WP:RS. I've gone in to remove the brackets to reveal the sources better. Not only has he written for sources, there are several profile articles about him. We have an ongoing issue with the category of publicist. Someone with that title is immediately suspect by the deletion crowd, and (full disclosure) I have tangled with this NOM before because he is one of the worst practitioners of the art of deleting content from wikipedia. It is the job of a publicist to get their client's name in the news, so one would expect the publicist would also act to get their own name in the news. All that said, this guy has done that and we have sources of that coverage here. It is a CV, but he has a notable CV Add to that James Grant is an incredibly common name and thus hard to google. Trackinfo (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have already noted that you are following me around to throw with personal attacks instead of serious arguments. Start assuming Good Faith instead of keeping whining about a series of AfDs that you did not like. The Banner talk 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was previously James Grant (journalist), deleted last year, though with hardly a resounding consensus (AFD). I don't know if the content is sufficiently changed to warrant a G4, though the Copyright bot flagged it as matching a WP mirror of the old article: [1]. Crow^Caw 22:47, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and question. We read above that there is enough material about him -- Enough that there was a 2011 book written about him, some of it sourced from this wikipedia article. This comes with a convenient link. Google says of this book (loosely defined): Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Sounds like a nonbook. It's put out by "Fec Publishing"; ergo, it's definitely a non-book. ¶ There's nothing damning about this: through no fault of their own, indisputably noteworthy people have their Wikipedia articles scraped by these outfits for sale to the unwary. But the existence of this "book" indicates no noteworthiness whatever. ¶ We read that As an entertainment commentator, Grant has been interviewed by The New York Times. Well, kind of. Here's what the article says: "It's difficult just to drop everything," said James Grant, a writer and producer in Hollywood. "The business of the day must go on. I do a lot of work when Jose Eber is cutting my hair. I do phone work and review files. Once, I had both of my assistants working there." That's it. That's the extent of the "interview". ¶ There is this in Forbes. Anything else that's more than a mere fleeting mention? -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely lacking in any substantive reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 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 23:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Beresford[edit]

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

Unotable actor with only a few credits that he has had. Wgolf (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's more likely notable for his writing the new film Pride, which is getting very strong reviews (some of them summarized in our article about the film), and looks likely to be in line for award consideration at year's end. So if we can't find enough coverage right now, it might be more of a matter of WP:TOOSOON, by a few months. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-So are you leaning for delete? Granted if they are nominated for a Oscar or a Emmy in any category then I say they are notable (does not matter what cat either) Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to defer my opinion while we see what substantive coverage comes up during the pendency of the AfD. There is quite a bit of coverage of Pride, not sure yet how much we can find about Beresford personally. (Here are a couple of interviews, for starters: [2][3]) Now I've found that he's also written a play called The Last of the Haussmans that was produced by the National Theatre [4] and has received all sorts of praise [5][6][7] (The Observer in 2012: "It is with disbelief that one discovers that The Last of the Haussmans is actor Stephen Beresford's first play. It is a knockout – entertaining, sad and outrageous. If he has more of this quality to write, he is going to be a major name.") So now it seems that he's written two distinct and notable works, which suggests personal notability to me. Not that the initial draft of the article hinted at any of this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Between them, the coverage Beresford got for The Last of the Haussmanns and has got so far for Pride seem to be just about enough for notability - and it looks as if there is probably more to come for Pride. He also appears to have been director of a production of Twelfth Night at the Albery Theatre about ten years ago which had a fair bit of rather mixed coverage at the time (this, for instance) and occasional mentions since. PWilkinson (talk) 20:31, 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 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was finally able to dig up some biographical information. Given that he's written two clearly notable works (Last of the Haussmans doesn't yet have an article, but Google shows that it has been extensively reviewed and reported), I think we can say that he passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:27, 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. slakr^\ talk / 18:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban Tool[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted via AfD for these same problems, but recreated via AfC. As with the previous AfD: Non-notable software with insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources available. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding sources - The AfC was approved for having fixed the sourcing problem and being sufficiently different from the deleted version, but in looking closely at the refs, I'm seeing the same problems and some familiar links. The Raju ref, which is duplicated in the list, is a couple sentences of promotional copy in a list of 15 on a website of generally dubious reliability; everything by David Anderson is self-published; Mead is again a small item in a longer list; Moran is self-published but borderline; the Shore Labs refs are written by this company; Github is certainly not a reliable source; Noorani et al. links to Kanban Tool with a referral link (i.e. they're paid for mentioning it); Liles is a primary source (interview); Marczak appears to just be a list. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a Kanban enthusiast and Kanban user. This is the only article about one of the very first and most recognizable software tools for Kanban, and I feel it deserves to be kept. I do believe that this article is not only based on creditable sources but it is also useful to Wikipedia readers. Looking closely at the refs, I cannot agree that the sources provided are of poor value or little notability and reliability.

In answer to Rhododendrites reason for deletion, I would like to defend and clarify the sources/refs that the author has added.

Although David Anderson hasn't got a dedicated article, he is clearly stated as the person who formulated Kanban method for development process [in the article on Kanban (development) ^[1], which references to the exact same books, as the article on Kanban Tool]. Therefore I trust, that it should not be discredited as a source. Also, books by this particular author are greatly regarded in the Kanban community. So the fact that D. Anderson self-publishes his own books should not be equalized with their low reliability, as both his books and he himself are recognized and respected by the Kanban society (including Wikipedia's articles on Kanban). Therefore, David Anderson is perceived as a father of Kanban in development by Kanban community as well as a developer of the Kanban method by Wikipedia. If he is so insignificant then why his opinions are stated in Kanban (development) Wikipedia's article? I don't think there is any more notable person in terms of Kanban in development.

The Marczak reference might be perceived as a list, but in fact it is a list of the top 15 Startup Fest Festival's finalists. StartUp Fest Festival is apparently the most important startup competition for aspiring founders, ground-breaking innovators, and entrepreneurs from all over Poland, and in itself I consider a good reason for notability. This implies that - out of thousands of companies taking part in this competition - Kanban Tool was selected a notable, outstanding one. Furthermore, I've found that Marczak's blog antyweb.pl is 1 of 10 most popular blogs and 1 of 3 most popular tech-blogs in Poland. Sources: ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

The Liles article indeed seems a primary source, but I would imagine, that the reason there is a reference to it, is that it contains an objective mention of Kanban Tool's success. As the introduction reads, Kanban Tool was awarded the Best Start-Up With Global Potential award by the US-Polish Trade Council for 2012, and this, I feel, is a solid evidence of the service's notability. Furthermore, it provides an insider's look into how this company works and how the service was created. Source: ^[5]

The particular listing on Github simply confirms that Kanban Tool uses backbone.js.

The mention at bitelia.com might be a small item, but the content seems to be written by independent writers, associated with bitelia.com. I feel that this shouldn't discredit the content, which is genuine and objective.

References to shorelabs.com and kanbantool.com websites do not stray from the general pattern of self-referencing ever-present in Wikipedia articles. The facts remain, that no matter how many reviewers write about Kanban Tool, the largest amount of useful information is being published on the service provider's own website. If the idea of Wikipedia is to deliver knowledge - this, I think, is the author's attempt at allowing the public access to the most appropriate and insightful facts on Kanban Tool.

The current references in the Kanban Tool article include three insightful reviews that seem not to have been taken into account when proposing the article for deletion. They are: Startup Magazine (in Polish) [Nieśmiertelne karteczki w wirtualnej odsłonie". Startup Magazine (in Polish) (Poland): 6–7. January 2013. ISSN 2083-909X], as well as one in German in Linux Magazin [Eckenfels, M. (June 2014). "Tolle Tafeln". Linux Magazin (in German) (Germany: Linux New Media): 44–45. ISSN 1432-640X], and one in English [Gibson, Jake (20 May 2014). "The Best Software Tools to Run a Startup". Entrepreneur Magazine (United States: Entrepreneur Media). ISSN 0163-3341]. All of them were published by magazines regarded as small business authority, and all of them are notable, independent, printed sources of information. I trust that content, that was published in national magazines is a great proof of Kanban Tool's reliability, as well as notability and would like for Wikipedia to, please, respect that. If those are not reliable sources then what are?

I would also like to add that Kanban Tool was included in the shortlist of Steve Blank's Startup Tools, which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article's references. Steve Blank is a notable entrepreneur and start-up expert; ^[6]. And after a quick research I found some other good references in the following: Studyguide for Matching Supply with Demand: An Introduction to Operations Management by Gerard Cachon ISBN 9780073525204 ^[7] Agile SAP: Introducing flexibility, transparency and speed to SAP implementations by Sean Robson ISBN 9781849284455 ^[8] ^[9]

I feel that, even though not perfect, the article is vital to the Kanban community and it deserves to be edited and improved rather than deleted. --AgileWriter (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AgileWriter: Thanks for weighing in and providing some leads for people to follow. Regarding the existing sources, though, your explanations for why they're valid conflict in some ways with Wikipedia policy for what is necessary to establish notability, which is somewhat different from what is considered a reliable source for other purposes (terms like notability, reliable source, and verifiability are kind of technical terms on Wikipedia, which can be complicated and indeed a little annoying if you're just starting to explore them). A couple examples: Although David Anderson hasn't got a dedicated article, he is clearly stated as the person who formulated Kanban method for development process [in the article on Kanban (development) [1], which references to the exact same books, as the article on Kanban Tool]. Therefore I trust, that it should not be discredited as a source -- It's not discredited because he's not knowledgeable; it's discounted because all of those sources are self-published, and self-published by someone with invested interests no less. The Wikipedia perspective on the issue is that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, we as editors need a quasi-objective measure of reliability, so primary sources are ruled out because if something is truly respected or well-known, other people will have written about it (as a secondary source) and it's those we should cite. no matter how many reviewers write about Kanban Tool, the largest amount of useful information is being published on the service provider's own website. -- Indeed reliable for, say, backing up some information about the software, but again doesn't help to establish notability -- which isn't to say it's not accurate information, but that notability is measured only by secondary sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I agree that David Anderson may be perceived as a primary source, but none the less, I think his books are influential, objective and worth keeping as a reference.

I still think that this article is about a notable subject, and should be kept. Apart from the 9 good references originally posted in the Kanban Tool article (it's 9, once you exclude the one discounted as a list [Raju, S. (23 January 2011). "Top 15 Kanban Tools in an Agile World". Tools Journal. Retrieved 30 June 2014.] and all Shore Labs references), there are the 5 new ones that I found and posted in my comment above, including non-self-published books.

Regarding secondary sources coverage, it seems that there are many academic works referencing Kanban Tool, all written on the subject of Agile methods, created and reviewed by independent researchers. Just today, after a quick search, I've found the following from different universities around the world: CORONA, E., & PANI, F. E. (2013). A Review of Lean-Kanban Approaches in the Software Development. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 10(1), 1-13^[10], Rola, L. D. (2011). Kanban for Small Software Projects. Project Background Report, The University of Manchester, Manchester^[11], da Silva, J. N. (2014). Projeto de Conclusão de Curso Título: Uma ferramenta para cálculo de Métricas Lean, BSI UFRPE^[12], Chekhlov, A (2014). ScrumBan pro malé a střední firmy, MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FAKULTA INFORMATIKY, Brno^[13].

This proves that the reliable, secondary sources are there, and finding even more shouldn't be an issue. I have now added them to the original article.

The fact, that different people write about Kanban Tool independently, and in different countries, really does prove the software's notability, or at least gives reasonable doubt to the claim that the article's subject is not notable, and for such, deletion would be inappropriate.--AgileWriter (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_%28development%29
^ http://pbi.org.pl/aktualnosci/Blogerzy%20w%20Polsce%202013%20%2818kwi13%29.pdf
^ http://www.kominek.in/2014/01/ranking-najbardziej-wplywowych-blogerow-w-2013-roku/
^ http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_Roku
^ http://kanbantool.com/blog/kanbantool-start-up-winner
^ http://steveblank.com/tools-and-blogs-for-entrepreneurs/
^ http://books.google.pl/books?id=EpQlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT163&dq=%22Kanban+Tool%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NuHQU4XJCfHP4QSD44HgCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Kanban%20Tool%22&f=false
^ http://books.google.pl/books?id=GbkcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22kanban+tools%22&source=bl&ots=zs3XIyNmyt&sig=C3zdyMv25LU0iIh4Qi3VryDfvn0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uVHBUsW_C-Gs7QbZzoAg&ved=0CHAQ6AEwBzgo#v=snippet&q=%22kanbantool%22&f=false
^ http://collaboration.about.com/od/projectmanagement/tp/7-Kanban-Board-Tools-For-Project-Collaboration.htm
^ http://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/information/2013/5709-110.pdf
^ http://studentnet.cs.manchester.ac.uk/resources/library/thesis_abstracts/BkgdReportsMSc11/Rola-LucasD-bkgd-rept.pdf
^ http://200.17.137.109:8081/novobsi/bsi-na-ufrpe-recife/trabalhos-de-conclusao-de-curso/2014.1/Uma%20ferramenta%20para%20calculo%20de%20Metricas%20Lean_Jessica%20Nunes.pdf
^ http://is.muni.cz/th/418144/fi_m/dp_xchekhl.pdf

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merging some material. In the explantion above, AgileWriter says that many references are essentially the same as the article Kanban (development). this is a reason for merging, not for having two articles. It is fairly obvious that an article about the method will mention the various devices; the references added are pparently about using the method in general. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 20 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 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After taking a significant amount of time to check all of the english language refs linked above and in the article, there is no significant RS coverage of this specific software. There is extensive coverage of the concept, not the software. Most refs which do cover the software are incidental mentions in lists of various software tools using the kanban concept. The refs that have more extensive coverage of the software fail to meet the standards of RS in various ways pointed out by Rhododendrites above.Dialectric (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric: Seems bizarre to disregard all these 20+ sources - it is a wider and better coverage than most of project management software articles I came across on Wikipedia. But my point is, that such coverage in many indpendent sources, both in printed newspapers, academic works and books, all found in short time (by me), give reasonable doubt to the claim that the article's subject is not notable, and per Wikipedia notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.". Given the above, this article should be kept with all problems highlighted, so that it can be later improved. AgileWriter (talk) 15:22, 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 move to draft space. Will move to Draft:List of proposed scenarios and technologies for de-carbonizing Europe. Any title change that's decided on can be implemented if this is improved and judged fit for article space. Deor (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed scenarios and technologies for de-carbonizing Europe[edit]

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

Poorly written, unreferenced, original research with linkfarms. It is more confusing than helpful, and not a good basis to address the topic, therefore suggest WP:TNT is the best way forward. ELEKHH^T 00:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity. (I have changed my opinion to "userfy", see below; I didn't think to strike out my original !vote until after the article was relisted.) I believe there is value in this material, but not here. This is basically an essay or synthesis, and as such prohibited here, as well as being almost impossible to reference properly. But Wikiversity allows for this kind of original research. I have restored the material deleted by NewsAndEventsGuy so that we can look at the article as the author intended it. I do think the linkfarm at "See also" and the half-dozen templates should be removed. I also think "List of" should be removed from the title, since it is not in list format; it should be called "Proposed scenarios and technologies for decarbonizing Europe". (Note: I was the one who originally PRODded this article, but I have changed my mind; I think it should not be deleted but rather transferred to a sister project where it would be accepted.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: per WP:EDITATAFD please self revert your undoing of my constructive changes. You can demonstrate Engineman's most recent work by providing this link. (Later) I removed some text from my own prior remark in favor of my current opinion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. I prefer to evaluate articles the way they are, not to expect people to discuss a version that has had half or more of the content removed - including Engineman's attempts to "fix the defects" by adding references. I did not find your blanking of most of the sections to be a "constructive change". On my the article's talk page you said that by restoring this information I take responsibility for it. Fine; I take responsibility for it. Now let's discuss the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if anyone wants to see NewsAndEventsGuy's preferred version of the article, it is here: [8]. Note that in the time since I restored the original information, Engineman has been toiling mightily to reference the article and bring it into encyclopedic shape. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whatever happens, this can't remain in mainspace, as it is so incomplete as to be useless in the current form. but not so useless as to wreck it. Closing admin, please userfy or transwiki. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to know how this is different from the other articles I mentioned; thus far nothing specifically about Europe has been included. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Move to draft space. If draft space is suitable for anything, it's suitable for incomplete work of this sort. We do not keep or delete articles based on the username of the editor who wrote them--the suggestion is utterly contrary to the basic principle of "anyone can edit" . And, despite what Melanie (talk · contribs) says, it is not just permissible but encouraged in deletion policy to improve an article during a discussion. One of the ways of doing so is often to remove material--I've probably removed promotional and poorly-thought-out material hundreds of times during AFDs in the effort to have them good enough to keep, as have a great many other editors. Of course, it is sometimes a question which version is preferable--I have also seen editors remove the essential parts of an article in order to get it unfairly deleted. I don;t know what is best done with this one--perhaps two articles are needed: a general article, and a list which would act as a guide to our many other articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 20 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 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace; This article title says its listing. The lead says it is a list. It is is not formatted like a list and doesn't comply with MOS regarding lists. Instead, it is an article that is comparing and analyzing. It is clearly in draft form. At the article talk page the article creator has also requested a name-change. It's quite clear that this is a draft work that is still in progress and gelling in the instigator's mind. That's what user space drafts are for. In addition, the ed still hasn't explained how this articles technology-comparison attempts to present anything really new that was not attempted by one or more of

Low-carbon economy

Climate change mitigation

Renewable energy

Renewable energy commercialization

et cetera?

The word "Europe" appears here and there, but more by happy coincidence of available examples. It isn't clear why this is about Europe's efforts. Move to user space draft, and give the hardworking good faith editor time to develop the ideas for WP:REVIEW review. BUT advise the ed to seriously consider adding comparative stuff to existing articles reviewing these technologies. If he wants to do something about Europe, then make it about Europe. This is just a technology overiew, one of many preexisting ones. Improve those, don't make another. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Energy policy of the European Union which covers similar ground and is more developed. Andrew (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: I thought and still think there is value in this work. Engineman has been working hard on it, with a lot of input from NewsAndEventsGuy, and it is vastly improved from when it was nominated. However, it is still incomplete, still contains a lot or original research, and the title and format (list or article?) are in dispute, as is the question of whether it is specifically about Europe or not. In other words it is not ready for mainspace. I agree with the others here that the best course right now would be to move it to userspace, where it can be expanded at leisure and these issues can be worked out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by principle article author

People, only just seen this thanks for pointing me to it News and Events Guy.

i am quite happy to remove the List from the title, but was advised earlier not to change the title for the time being. I am also happy for it to be either European or worldwide because the same points apply.

And it is not true that the other articles deal with the subject in this way that I am treating, they are very poor and say things like " more storage will be needed ", or pv could be a solution ( not in those exact words) but as the article in question shows, the section on storage shows this is not true and quite misleading although it is often touted as a fact. Similarly it often claimed that better insulation will be a component of the low carbon society and will reduce carbon to the necessary low levels, but as I will show, detailed studies show that merely insulating legacy buildings will not work. So what is needed is an article which lists all the components that are touted as being suitable for a low carbon Europe / world, and listing with evidence whether or not the technology claims are in fact true, from a numerical and engineering view point, not just vague statements. This article when I have finished it will do just that.Engineman (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All, the other articles, all say things in effect " we could have a bit of this, a bit of that (pv, wind, nuclear etc) without any numerical discussion of if it would actually work in the big picture. As the article shows electricity storage which is widely touted simply is not a solution to low carbon economy and nor is insulation, to pick two, but none of the existing article show this.

If it were merged with other article it will dilute and confuse the reader.

I dont see any original research its all based on referenced facts.

And I am happy for the title to be changed to take out list and make it europe specific or global but the same facts witll apply.

And finally for now, the article will only be about power and heat, as these two are intimately related, although this is another point not generally recognized in the other articles.

The other articles are good general summaries but they are not good enough, and cannot be made so since the serve a different general approach. ps agreed it needs a lot more work but at least I might get some help if it is in the main section. Engineman (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Engineman:, (A) I just posted an offer of help at your user talk; and (B) you've rejected adding your material to other relevant articles because you don't agree with their present content. That's not a reason to create yet another article. In fact, that remark makes it seem plain you're (in good faith) working on an impermissible WP:POVFORK. Don't just run off and do your own competing thing. Fix the problems in the existing things! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get paid to give feedback to college students about their writing for six hours every week, and I learn something by editing Category:Energy law articles. I don't mean to be rude, but what makes this article different from the others is the poor writing and editing. To any objective reader, it's a draft, not an encyclopedia article. Sorry for my bluntness, but you asked. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearian, thank you for your feed back. It is acknowledged and understood that this is a draft article. My approach is to get some hard references in, and then to knock it into shape. Feel free to help.

Dear Others, the other articles are IMHOP far to general, and it will not work putting the points I am making in this article in amongst all the other details of the techns. This article only covers the limitations and synergies none of which the other articles deal with.

Requested new title : Practical maximum Carbon Reduction Technologies - Limitations, Synergies and Integration for the heating, cooling and power sectors

This article summarizes key features which make unrealistic some of the widely promoted technologies that could play a significant role in a global low-carbon economy to help avoid further global warming, why some technologies are mutually exclusive, and why some technologies demand other matching technologies to be effective. "Significant role" means that a very large proportion of all energy, not just electricity, heating and cooling, is assumed to come from or be associated with the technology. This article deals only with heating, cooling and power generation since because these key sectors uniquely strongly interact and therefore low carbon policy and technologies must in some views be dealt with in an integrated manner.Engineman (talk) 12:26, 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. Cerebellum (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Neville[edit]

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

A Pulitzer nomination is not an award, or even status as a finalist--it just takes a $50 submission fee. Nothing else here shows sufficient notability; most of the material is press releases DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And the article was made by an SPA. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent number of sources if you look, and his projects have had some prominence. It's not obvious whether he's notable to me. —innotata 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added 9 sources I believe. He is an internationally known artist. The Pulitzer nomination is odd because I can't find anything to back that up, but why make that claim when he is internationally recognized? Anyway the sources satisfy WP:GNG and there is plenty of depth available for a nice article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 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 23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the general notability guideline appears to be met. The claim regarding the Pulitzer nomination feels awkward in the lede sentence, but that can always be changed. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:40, 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 delete. Cerebellum (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SimCard (comedian)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. He has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works of independent reliable sources. He has not won a major award, such as the British Comedy Award etc. No reports by reliable sources that the subject has gone on an international comedy tour. Perhaps, its WP:TOOSOON Wikicology (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable comedian. Stanleytux (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summer love (novel)[edit]

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

First deleted for violating copyrights. Created again, but still it has no notability and Subin Bhattarai is non-notable too. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :: I have rewritten that in my own language. So I don't know how it is copyright voilation? Next An article on novel is not non-notable when it was most sold and youth-loved novel. AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as it is the most popular novel in Nepalese market nowadays mostly loved by the youths. Getting to the copyright point, I don't see any copyright voilation as of now. Hackerboyas (Talk) 08:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hackerboyas What you mean by popular novel? When there are no citations available, and its author is non-notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bladesmulti What do you mean by no citation when there are 3reference AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali wikipedia, blogspot, fineprint(book seller) are not reliable citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti, I know it can be daunting to scour the news sources of some countries, but bad cites in an article with significant claims of notability can merit investigation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 22 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 23:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Since the copyright is not voilated now nd the novel is notable too I request some admin to close this discussion. AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have improved the article with sourcing to established Nepali news sources which demonstrate it was a notable bestseller in that country.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Milowent. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Milowent. AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bladesmulti,Now do you agree to keep it in wikipedia?? AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now, Bladesmulti can you withdraw the afd or close this discussion?AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can close it. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how?I dont have admin right.AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait, you don't need admin right for it. When someone will close this AFD, you will know yourself. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:50, 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. Cerebellum (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African Sound Records[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. The label has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African Sound Records is a Burundian recording label founded by Panogiotis Soulakellis (Takis). The label's current artists include Sat-B,[1] Kiki Toure, Alida B, Dety Darba, Happy Famba, Best life music & Frenki.--Korabdi (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. Stanleytux (talk) 09:31, 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 23:17, 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 delete. Cerebellum (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Voss[edit]

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

Run of the mill minor league player. Fails WP:Athlete and WP:GNG Yankees10 23:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the article and the sources provided didn't say he played in the minor leagues. He played for the Detroit Tigers which was a major league.[9] It satisfies WP:BASEBALL/N as being "appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball...". ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did not play in any games for the Tigers,the reference you cite says he played in Class-A and Class-AA which are minor leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The QEditor, if you don't know how baseball or the organizational system works, please do not post on these AfDs. Alex (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexsautographs:, please do not bite the newcomer. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexsautographs:, My mistake, I thought that the Detroit Tigers were only a MLB team. I'm also crossing my vote on the other pages. Thanks! ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :( I'm inherently a bad person and should probably leave the Internet forever. Alex (talk) 03:32, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legitmix[edit]

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

Whether this company is notable is marginal. On the other hand, this is a frequent topic of Wiki-PR, so this entire article was probably an attempt at spam. Suggest delete and salt Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- As I said a while ago on the article's talk page, I think it barely meets WP:GNG, but it's history and PR problems should not be ignored, and killing it's no great loss. Regardless, I think salting may be a bit premature. Is there some reason to think it's likely to be recreated? Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's been deleted before. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, sorry, I should've checked that. Yes, salt if it's deleted, by all means. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Currently, it looks promotional. Some of the sources, however, show signs of notability. A complete overhaul could save it. Alexius08 (talk) 15:26, 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 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Niche coverage, I don't see how this passes WP:COMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 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 22:44, 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 November (film). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Brand[edit]

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

Surprise this article has been around so long. Unotable screenwriter. (Granted it was started a long time ago when it looked like he could be someday, but not now) Wgolf (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to November (film), which seems to be his only claim to fame. If this guy's notable, why doesn't the world's largest encyclopedia even know his date, place, or year of birth? For a modern person, what poses as a biography would fail to have that data? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Clarke[edit]

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

Has been famous (not notable) for one occasion. The article was discussed and decided to redirect, in 2012, to that one-time occasion. It has been re-created by a blocked editor without much addition and has no real development since. I see no reason to keep this bio article in WP. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, seems notable and well-sourced. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor: South Pacific, absolutely no other claim of notability, clear example of ONEEVENT. J04n(talk page) 23:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article was redirected and has since been improved and sourced. Very clearly meets WP:GNG. Gloss • talk 18:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note, this is more-so the 3rd nomination, as it was nominated in a group of articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Stapley with a result to keep (less than 3 months ago). Gloss • talk 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 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 22:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG as every American survivor winner has done apparently. Even a number of non-winners are apparently notable. Which is why we have a template like this:

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:56, 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 11:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Stummer[edit]

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

Seems to be a largely non-notable journalist, written in promotional style. Only semi-notable thing seems to be founding magazine Cornerstone which went bust two years ago (after only lasting two years)[10]. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

What is the reason for bringing this to AfD? WP:NOT? WP:N? A "largely non-notable journalist" sounds like the same thing as a notable journalist. A promotional style is a problem in how the material is being presented, not the WP:NOT issue WP:PROMOTION. What about the books seen on the first page using WP:BEFORE? The first snippet reads, "One person whose detailed critical reporting on HS2 was suddenly and inexplicably cut short was the journalist Robin Stummer, although there is no evidence of Westbourne's involvement. Stummer was the founder of a specialist heritage ..." Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not proposing to comment on my own AfD nomination (except to confirm, yes, it was WP:NOT), but just flagging up that the page's creator left various comments defending on the article on the talk page to this AfD page. Copying it across here just for whatever it adds to the debate:

This contribution has been edited since original posting, and fully complies with Wiki guidance on acceptable content. The contribution is not promotional. It has no promotional or commercial aspect in any way. It is a factual account of the work and specialism of a journalist who, far from being 'non-notable', has worked on quality British newspapers for a quarter of a century, breaking many stories, and whose work is known around the world. LEGIS, apparently a lawyer, is factually incorrect about Cornerstone magazine, which, it appears clearly, was highly successful throughout its existence; it never "went bust". On the contrary, it seems that it was exceptionally successful in all aspects, including its commercial standing. Indeed, the title was extremely successful throughout its existence. A name change took place in 2012, as can be easily seen online. It is now entitled SPAB Magazine. LEGIS is also grossly incorrect in stating that the magazine lasted only two years. As can be easily seen online, Cornerstone was founded in 2004, and its name changed in 2012. That is eight years. It is hard to understand why LEGIS is making these basic errors. This Wiki article is fully in keeping with equivalent articles currently online and viewable, covering several journalist colleagues of Robin Stummer. It is hard to understand why this article submission has been singled out in this way. Perhaps LEGIS can further explain his attitude to this contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bealey3399 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 October 2014‎

There is a response from me on my talk page (although weirdly his comments on my talk page are signed by a different user), but that response really just relates to answering his questions about how the process goes rather than his substantial objections to the AfD. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a laudable idea. I think the quality of AfD would quickly improve if nominators relied on making their case in the nomination argument. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 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 22:41, 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 delete. Wily D 15:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hide in the Pickling Jar[edit]

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

Unreferenced, self-released, not apparently notable; article is nothing more than a tracklist with a factoid or two. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Fails to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 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 22:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Buckethead is a well known artist. He is "self-releasing" his "Pikes" series through Bandcamp. Releasing this many albums in such a short time is not possible via any traditional means. The album page has all the relevant information needed for an album page (track listing + release dates + miscellaneous). There is no "significant coverage" because major publications do not pay attention to Bandcamp nor self-released music in general.

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

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

The result was no consensus. No real arguments for delete or keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Over Flowers[edit]

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

This is an article is on a TV show that already has a page, which covers this topic much more extensively Aequitas333 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I saw on the new page listed a few of these "over flowers" articles also by the way. But yeah seems unotable. Wgolf (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable tv show in South Korea. Kanghuitari (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No need for multiple pages on the exact same topic. Kingjeff (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not same topic. Kanghuitari (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this article is up for deletion. I've found it helpful. Revlow (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems legit. differs from the other one. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 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 22:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mollys[edit]

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

Seems to fail all of criteria 1-12 of WP:BAND. I searched for sources covering the band and couldn't come up with anything except a listing on Allmusic. Their official website, linked on this article, is dead. All musicians listed are red links and due to lack of coverage I can't determine what label the band is on and if that label is notable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's just enough coverage with an Allmusic bio and a couple of reviews ([11] and [12]), a Village Voice review reproduced on the band's website (why is a website being down a reason to delete an article?), a review from metroactive and further coverage from Your West Valley News, Billboard, and the book The Best of No Depression: Writing about American Music, which lists them as one of the best roots-rock acts of the 1990s. --Michig (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not too keen on the idea of Allmusic as a source of notability, but that and the other sources is enough to at least make it debatable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like a really minor band to me (what the hell is "roots-rock"?), Allmusic is mainly a music directory, they're not exactly the pinnacle of notability. --108.211.72.67 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And billboard is mainly a charts database, doesn't mean a curated review on their website is less notable because of it. Allmusic is perfectly legitimate as a review source, on the same tier as Pop Matters, Sputnik Music or No Depression. Earflaps (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete. Earflaps (talk) 04:15, 19 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 22:38, 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 Speedy delete A3 as the article had no meaningful substantive content about the subject, and because this darticle as it stood didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to survive anyway. No need to spend more time on this. Fram (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Copa América[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and even the venue has not yet been decided. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As it stands, this article is pure speculation. Altamel (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjale Kalubai Mandir[edit]

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

Very short article which was created in August of this year and fails WP:GNG. The article also has no references, no links going into the article, and fails to show significance. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minute mention in a reliable source here (French research from 1970, p.1529). From images online it seems to be a small village temple of limited local importance. All other sources seem self-published. It should not be confused with the more important Mandhradevi temple (dedicated to the same goddess) in the same region. The map used in the article was also a copyvio; now a speedydelete candidate in Wikimedia. - Takeaway (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real claim of notability presented or supported by references. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Parraz[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Doesn't seem to pass GNG as all coverage I see is routine. Article was re-directed in April, but no longer plays for the organization. Yankees10 20:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the cusp for me, at least. There are sources that seem to be in depth, I added some. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Non notable minor league player. Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Correct me if I'm wrong, but he played for the New York Yankees which was in Major League Baseball which makes him notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. He played in minor league games for the team which is not part of WP:BASEBALL/N.--Yankees10 21:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Thanks for telling me, I didn't know that. I'm not a big baseball fan... ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I recall, he was supposed to be good once. Alex (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that a rationale to delete? I think you need to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:DISCUSSAFD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chill out buddy, it was just a comment about the guy. The reason for deletion was hashed out above. LOL, take a Midol. Alex (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - So then you say why you think he should be deleted, even if it's by citing the above. As far as the rest of your comment, I think you should reread Wikipedia:Civility as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You really like to tell people what to do. It's kind of annoying. Alex (talk) 09:09, 27 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. Wily D 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos App[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was initially created by the creators of the purported app. Though other editors later added sources which talked about the "app" during the week in which it was the "topic de jour" on many Jewish websites, they were all predicated on the Kickstarter campaign which had been created for the potential app. Since then, the creators of the Kickstarter campaign have ended that campaign, and have in fact stated publically that they only started the campaign in the first place to gauge interest in such an app. There is no indication that the app actually exists, or ever will. While it might make sense to mention this Internet event in a section of an article on technological innovations in Orthodox Judaism, it certainly is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Product doesn't exist yet and the article is all based on WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:GOSSIP - not what an encyclopedia is about. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 22:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic easily passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's inconsequential whether or not the app has been released ~~or even if it's a hoax~~, as topic notability is based upon source coverage, the reliability of sources and depth of coverage. Source examples include:

The Times of Israel
The Times of Israel
Haaretz

Popular Mechanics
The Jewish Week
Orthodox Union.

–NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Struck part of my !vote above. It is not a hoax, per this primary source. Futhermore, per this source, the developers "are planning to release the app with full functionality on Dec first on Google Play." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000: "It's inconsequential whether or not the app has been released or even if it's a hoax, as notability is based upon source coverage." In simple words, even if it is a hoax, it is a notable hoax. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because 1 the article cites sufficient WP:V & WP:RS, and adheres to WP:NPOV, to make it basically WP:N regardless if it was a trial balloon or has yet to see the light of day it has sparked serious attention and 2 because it relates to serious core issues of Shabbat-observant Orthodox young Jews who are nevertheless addicted to texting and communicating with each other on Shabbat with their smart phones hence the interest in this innovation. 3 So this is not a "hoax" nor is it a form of "crystal balling" rather it's something to be treated more in the spirit of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. 4 This AfD comes within days of the first AfD being closed as lacking consensus to delete, meaning there was enough of a WP:CONSENSUS to keep the article and not delete it. Therefore, one can only conclude that 5 the nominator appears very upset that his arguments and POV did not carry the day first time around and now wants to keep the arguments going, that does seem rather WP:POINTY and engaging in borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to achieve on the fly what was not achieved after almost a month that the 1st AfD lasted. 6 Note that way out Theories, even non-existent Faeries and invisible Ghosts, get their own elaborate WP articles even if they never make an appearance in the real world right away or ever. 7 The nominator is advised to read up on WP:SPIDERMAN and cool it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first AfD lacking consensus to delete does not mean there was consensus to keep it. Lacking one or another, an AfD fails. Furthermore, as stated in this renomination, they have closed their Kickstarter since that AfD was closed, which changes things considerably. As for notability, Zev Farber's denial of the Revelation at Sinai got vastly more coverage in reliable sources than this thing did during the brief week it was being talked about, yet I don't think anyone would accept an article called Zev Farber's denial of the revelation at Sinai. Would you? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is an article about a future product from a vendor with no track record. In general, we should try to not let Wikipedia be used for promotion. Deleting the article now would be appropriate. We can revisit this if and when the thing ships. It's supposed to ship on 1 DEC 2014, so we'll know then. Waiting will also resolve the "hoax" issue. This is an encyclopedia; there's no big rush. John Nagle (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative, if it turns out to be real, is a merge into Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law#Telephones. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "hoax issue." It is clearly covered by RSs. That's what we rely on. Of course, we have editors who think that all sorts of things, including Obama's place of birth, are hoaxes ... but we go with the RSs. Are you aware that even when there are in fact hoaxes, we have many wp articles that cover them, if the RS coverage is there? --Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close The previous AfD was closed on October 19. No reason has been given in the nomination for such a quick renomination. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true. Since that AfD, the Kickstarter that started this whole thing was closed by the people who created it. That seems like a very good reason for a renom. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close or Keep. ~~Or procedural keep.~~ Per Unscintillating -- obviously, we don't re-open AfDs days after prior AfDs close, without some new good reason. Which is absent here. And Keep per the above Keeps. Clearly meets GNG, despite the nom's suppositions and OR, which litter her edit summaries, talk page discussion, and prior AfD comments. Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it's absent? They closed their own Kickstarter. This is nothing but an exercise in using social media and Wikipedia for publicity. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read that the developers closed their kickstarter? Can you point to RS coverage of that, or are are you looking only at a kickstarter page? And have you read that they are coming out with the product earlier than when they were depending on their kickstarter? And have you read that they are lowering the price? And who cares anyway -- the planned product, not the kickstarter, garnered the RS coverage. And what is the basis (yet again) for your blanket assertion that this article was initially created by the creators of the purported app -- is that OR, or even worse are you saying that if someone creates a wp name "Obama" and edits the Obama page, they are necessarily him? Maybe it was you, trying to discredit the article; how do we know otherwise. And why does it matter? Especially given that the article is full of RS coverage added by other, well-established editors, who have not the slightest hint of COI. This has substantial RS coverage in two or three continents, in nearly a dozen RS articles devoted to the topic. You are beating a dead horse, yet again, directly after your views were not the consensus views at the prior AfD.Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the developer's own website that they cancelled (cancelled, not closed) their own Kickstarter. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now clearly a keep, with additional RS coverage, so may as well close this a Keep to clarify that there should not be another "can't bury the hatchet ... two days later" AfD. As discussed below, cancelling/closing/ending the Kickstarter was not cancelling/closing/ending the product -- just the opposite. Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cancelled" implies that the proposed app is no longer being developed. The Kickstarter fundraising was the only evidence it WAS ever in development. Without such evidence, all we have is generic talk about what actions on a smartphone can or cannot break religious laws. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely false. All it indicates is that the developers are not seeking funding from that source. At the same time, they indicate they are moving forward with development.[13] Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic does not escape Wikipedia's radar. The argument to delete is an argument saying that this topic escapes Wikipedia's radar. The multitude of good quality reliable sources discussing this topic are not concerned that this product does not exist or may not ever exist. Many sources are discussing the theory of such a phone. No, this is not a scientific theory. The sources are discussing whether theoretically a few tweaks to a smartphone can render it compliant with the halacha governing Shabbos permissibility. It is a topic widely covered by good quality sources. That makes this topic compliant with Wikipedia policy which might be brought to bear on whether or not to "keep" this article. In the final analysis the sources are supporting this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best in a few months this page can renamed The Shabbos App Hoax. At this point there is no third party evidence that it is ever going to be real. (Zwolfp (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

— Zwolfp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Extensive coverage in reliable sources. If nominator thinks it's a one time thing that will die down I would suggest renominating in six months to better gauge its historic impact.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 and IZAK. --Yoavd (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zwolfp -- but I would say even stronger than Zwolfp suggested: It should be replaced now by a page describing the discussion rather than one describing what was most likely a hoax and at best a couple of people with a dream that they never successfully launched. micha (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a "hoax" nor a "dream". It is an effort to find a way to use a cellphone on Shabbos. One cannot do melacha on the Shabbat. The definition of melacha is hazy but as Wikipedia very well says "The thirty-nine melakhot are not so much activities as categories of activity." Cell phone use is very much desired, especially by young people. The phenomenon is noteworthy as evidenced by the multitude of sources responding to the mere suggestion that such an app is in the making. All of the sources weighing in are keenly aware that these "categories of activity" can be broadly or narrowly interpreted. Our article is noting the intellectual curiosity elicited by the proposed app and the multitude of reliable sources weighing in with commentary on it. The sources target specifically this app therefore there should be little reason to subsume the content of his article into a related article. Bus stop (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject of the article does not exist yet. There is not a single review of it as a functioning piece of software. There is not even an independent source that speaks of it as a piece of software in development. (And it would be highly unusual anyway to have a Wikipedia article about unreleased software still in development, - as it would also be unusual to have an article about a film still in production, see Wikipedia:Planned films, or a book still being written.) What we have in this article is a concept for a proposed app - the concept being "what will allow us to use a smart phone on the Sabbath?" and commentary about the answer being "nothing". That commentary would be much better placed in an article about Jewish religious laws regarding the Sabbath. This article is nothing more than promotional advertising for a kickstarter business concept for a smartphone app. If the app is ever released, and is actually used by anyone, and it is notable enough to be reviewed in neutral sources, then maybe then a Wikipedia article can be justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that we already have an article entitled Shabbat module. Perhaps this could be merged into that as a subsection. That way, it's still covered, but without the drastic disproportionate weight of its own article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about something else! Debresser (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a thought. There's already Shabbat module, Sabbath mode, and Shabbat elevator. Are there more related articles? Maybe what's needed is a broader article on "Shabbat workarounds". There's a good article on Halachipedia on "Electricity on Shabbat", which covers all this in one article, including a mention of the Shabbos app.[14] --John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Procedural (only a few days after 1st attempt) and because this article is about a notable development and upcoming sofware. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, In my opinion, it's not beneficial to conduct another AfD so soon. In the first AfD, I suggested selectively merging this into an existing article, either Sabbath mode or Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law#Computers and similar appliances. My suggestion did not carry the day, to put it mildly. Given the energetic split between keeps and deletes, the AfD was closed as "no consensus", effectively defaulting to keep. In my opinion, that close was correct, and I don't think anything has happened yet that warrants such a quick re-opening of the discussion. I haven't seen anything in a reliable source to suggest that the Kickstarter cancellation affects the project's notability one way or the other. The developers say they terminated the campaign because they saw such a strong indication of interest that they intend to have the app ready by December 1. [15] Meanwhile, it appears that the interested community is still discussing the question. So I don't think this is the time for another argument. The continued split of opinion reflected here bears that out; I don't see how we can expect any different result than last time. I think it makes better sense to step back and allow the article to be developed. If the app never appears (or if it does, for that matter) we can revisit the question in six months or so. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed. There was no consensus for deletion at the previous AfD, and the ample reliable and verifiable sources from a broad range of references establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Got to shake my head at the Delete voters, who're basing their opposition largely on WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT arguments. Who freaking cares about the app's Kickstarter status, and what does that have to do with Wikipedia guidelines? The subject's discussed at length in high-quality, major media sources. Done deal. This is a GNG pass. Nha Trang 21:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject you say is discussed at length in high-quality media sources is not the app. Nobody has seen or tested the app - it does not exist as a product. The subject discussed in sources is whether there are ways to make a smart phone allowable to be used on the Sabbath. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the voter above indicates, we should keep the article because of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, not because anybody has "has seen or tested the app". I'm pretty certain that there is no such thing as a flying saucer and that they are not captained by extraterrestrial beings, yet we have articles on all of those topics. With Halloween just days away, I'm darn near certain that there is no such thing as ghosts, goblins or zombies, but we have actively edited and widely accepted articles about all of these concepts. We even have an article about philosophical zombies, which at best is a hypothetical construct about a kind of undead person who doesn't walk slowly and search for brains to eat. If you're concerned that the Shabbos App article is about a product / service that doesn't exist, just take a look at Category:Vaporware. Regardless of the existence of the app, the reliable and verifiable coverage about is exceedingly real, and that's what matters here. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[post AfD comment moved to the talk page, WT:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination). 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural keeps[edit]

I'd like to suggest that all of the "procedural keep" votes based on the mistaken impression that this 2nd AfD was started too soon after the previous one was closed be disregarded. The fact that the creators of the app aborted their Kickstarter is a significant change in the situation. All of the reliable sources about this "app" were predicated on that Kickstarter, which no longer exists, and that is a reasonable cause for a new AfD. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cancelled" implies that the proposed app is no longer being developed. The Kickstarter fundraising was the only evidence it WAS ever in development. Without such evidence, all we have is generic talk about what actions on a smartphone can or cannot break religious laws. It is bad enough having an article about a minor piece of software that is still to be released, but an article about the concept for a minor piece of software than will never exist is unsustainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It states on the app's website here that they plan to release the app on December 1: "With HaShem’s help we are planning to release the app with full functionality on Dec first on Google Play." We will find out whether that is true or not when that date comes. Just because the Kickstarter was canceled does not indicate that the "proposed app is no longer being developed". Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support deleting this article if it isn't released? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue that three of the editors who have worked on the article, including the article's creator, appear to be linked to the business that is creating the proposed app and so have a coi. [16] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Obviously a released product is more likely to be notable, but unreleased products can be notable also. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 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 delete a7, article does not assert subject's notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulaş Öcal[edit]

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

This page is promotional and the subject has no coverage in reliable third-party sources (thus failing WP:GNG). An internet search turned up nothing except social media profiles. Biblio worm 20:50, 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 delete. Aleding declined to provide reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and instead countered with faulty keep rationales in a desperate attempt to save the article for deletion. No reliable sources = no article. Secret ^account 04:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenia Roy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Refs provided in the article fail to establish notability and are trivial. Although she has done some background scores for some popular Indian movies, it doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She won an award here, a coupla mentions, but doesn't seem like sufficient sourcing to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 19 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me this artist qualifies via WP:MUSIC - specifically numbers 2, 8, 9, & 10. I'm not sure where Harsh found she did not so please indicate where my previous note is inaccurate. Additionally, it seems that this artist definitely passes the WP:GNG by at least 3 of the 5 criteria.Aleding (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain the following:-

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart - Which music chart are you talking about?
- My error - RETRACTED.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has won or been nominated for a major music award - She has won a Bengali-language music award given by a begali-language radio station. How is that a major award?
- The classification of an award being major or not is not defined within the WP context (at least that I could find) and seems to be at least mostly subjective. If the consensus is that this award is not major, understood - but I don't think we can say that just because it's not a US or UK based award.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has won or placed in a major music competition - Which one?
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable - She has just given background scores for some songs.
- I found that she is listed as "playback singer" in several movies.^[1]^[2]Agreed these are not "mainstream" movies per se but they are credits and lack of inclusion on IMDB can be something as simple as the fact that IMDB focusses hugely on Western cinema and very little on Bollywood and\or Asian film.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for GNG, I have only this source [17] which just mentions her and it is not even exclusively written about her. Harsh (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not commenting on the number of actual cites - I was commenting that she appears to meet 3 of the 5 listed criteria in WP:GNG such as "Reliable" (2nd), "Secondary Sources" (3rd), "Independence" (4th).

To my understanding of this process, single instances of either meeting or not meeting select criteria are not reasons to either keep or delete. The idea is gain to consensus regarding all aspects - or as many as can be ascertained - about the subject in question. Given the number of factors involving this artist, it seems to me that she meets the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleding: According to which criteria it should be included on English Wikipedia, please feel free to explain with the help of Wikipedia's policy and not your own thoughts.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: Everything I have stated is both referenced and signed - I'm not going to type it our again just for you - really not sure what more you need.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ "GoMolo profile".
^ "IMDB profile".

See → INDAFD Zeenia Roy

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in independent sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that despite the references you include, she still should not be included? Also, referencing the WP:GNG itself, failure to meet any or all of its criteria is not automatic grounds for deletion.Aleding (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleding: I think you have misunderstood my !vote or lacks the basic knowledge of Wikipedia's policy for notability. Note- With INDAFD I'd mentioned the link which tells that the subject lacks significant coverage which is most important for the biographies of living person. BTW according to YOU which criteria meets to keep (include) the article on English Wikipedia? Are you aware, even this article fails WP:NMUSIC? — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I can definitely read and it's pretty clear what the policy is but it does seem evident you have a reverse understanding of how this works.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As evidenced all throughout WP in any number of polices, lack of meeting a criteria is NOT grounds for deletion. The presumption is that a given person is NOT included and then criteria are found to substantiate that the person should be included - in essence, it's one where inclusion has to be proved, not deletion as you seem to think. If a person does not meet criteria in BIOs, then they might meet via any other number of criteria - in this case, maybe for artists. All you have done here is suggest that this person does not meet one of many possible criteria (e.g. bios) and while I thank you for that, it does nothing toward the goal at hand.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your link - I'm not really seeing how that disproves anything - it illustrates several articles where the subject is mentioned.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of pieces of advice: First - offer counters to someone's arguments rather than just re-stating your own; and more importantly second, do not take push back so personal. It might be beneficial to review one of WP's key pieces of advice which is to assume in good faith which I have done here with you though you have made it a bit challenging.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Fails WP:MUSICBIO/WP:ARTIST/WP:ENT. May be can consider in falling WP:TOOSOON. Athachil (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Athachil: I do not see how one can say Delete without proving that a given person fails ALL criteria. The default for all persons is that they are NOT notable UNLESS they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject in which case they are presumed to be notable. This does not mean they must pass every criteria for inclusion into WP nor does it mean if they fail one or more criteria, they should be deleted. What this means is that if a given person passes at least one criteria, then they can be considered notable and therefore, included in WP. In essence, for a person to not be included, they should fail ALL CRITERIA - not just a subset. As I've outlined above, this artist appears to meet several criteria. Specifically to your suggestion about this failing WP:TOOSOON, that appears to require a lack of sources which is not the case here. I do agree that the subject fails many other criteria as well but that's not relevant in the overall scheme of deciding whether or not to keep the article.Aleding (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleding my understanding is that the basic criteria that a biographical article must pass is the general notability guideline (which seems to me the widest net). If ZR meets the GNG, please show us with sources; right now, there is a paucity of sources in the article, and my searches have not yielded anything more substantive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Well I think passing bio is just one manner by which a person can be included but certainly it is not the only method - I think that is part of the issue here. Many seem to believe that just because a person may fail one set of criteria, that further evaluation should cease. This is not true - for a presumably notable person to not be included, they should fail ALL CRITERIA - not just those in bio or GPG. Earlier in this debate, I proposed that the subject meets at least two overall criteria - both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I would ask to please review what I have included previously and then counter as you feel necessary. In the end, this may come down to a subjective difference of opinion here - some may think what has been published thus far is not substantial enough and actually, if that were all that existed, I might readily agree. But I think the published sources PLUS the others factors I mention all combine to support her inclusion.Aleding (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleding Don't see how she passes either WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Right now the article is in violation of WP:BLP with pretty much all unsourced material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: OK - but if you don't think she meets either or both WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG, then I would ask to actually prove that rather than just saying she doesn't meet it. If my arguments presented above are invalid, then please feel free to take them apart. As to the material being unsourced - not sure how that is true. Everything I have discussed as well as what is in the actual is referenced.Aleding (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the onus is on you, Aleding, to make a case that she meets notability requirements; if you can't, and so far I don't see it, the article will get flushed. Thems the rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: That's truly hilarious - let's see if I follow: I make an argument with supporting information, you make a statement that is counter to my argument but provide no supporting argument whatsoever - in essence just your opinion - and the onus is on me to prove you...not sure...wrong? Isn't that what my argument is meant to do in the first place??? We're supposed to build consensus based on facts - not opinion - and statements without supporting arguments fail NPOV - i.e. asserting opinions as facts.Aleding (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider your statement "I make an argument with supporting information" -- nope, you didn't do that. You did not make an argument with supporting information. That's what's needed here, otherwise, flush-a-roonie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Then I guess we need to agree to disagree - one would think that if my argument so easy to dismiss, then you would just hop on over, dismantle the argument, and go from there. And if you, or anyone, chooses to take that more productive route, then I will be glad to discuss it.Aleding (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming, of course, that you have an argument to dismantle.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Everything I have argued is earlier in this article - near the top. All of my comments are signed so it should be pretty easy to follow.Aleding (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bandgang[edit]

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

Can't quite put this as a speedy-but it does seem to fall under non notable-very new and only 2 mixtapes and a unreleased album. Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, page created by someone at their record label, whose account I am about to block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:53, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Clackson[edit]

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

no evidence of notability ; no independent references DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR look like the most appropriate notability criteria for this one but in either case we need independent and reliable in-depth sources about the subject or his works, and we only have sources by him (or non-independent sources such as author bios). Incidentally, the article creator GlobalInsight (talk · contribs) has been blocked for having a bad user name but another single-purpose account, IskanderArfa (talk · contribs) has started editing the article and removed the AfD notice from it. I restored the notice and warned the user not to do that. The same user added a "keep" comment to the talk page of this AfD, but without a rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now a third spa, TunisianPrince (talk · contribs), has removed the notice again. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show notability as an academic (one source lists him as a grad student). Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an academic no, but would keep due to notability as political analyst and commentator. Appearing on Channel One Russia (which is the biggest channel in the country) on the news at 9 pm is a pretty big deal. Also he debated on political TV shows with ambassadors and well-known journalists. And his articles have been published on two-think tanks. I would say that is significant enough to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperHybrid (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

people who have done no actual work of significance but have nonetheless appeared om interviews on the internet and other programs and quoted for their opinion, ard not notable,any more than their eqwuivelent would have been in a previous generation when they were writing letters to the editors. It not the fact that they have published work that patterns, but that other people have published works about them. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luke Brown[edit]

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

Well the first single has yet to be released so it is too soon (as a note I put a redirect on a Martin Brown (musician) just now but I'm now unsure if it is the same guy... Wgolf (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:33, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ross[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. Do not believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect fails WP:MUSIC and fails WP:NOTEBLP for lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. At the time of this Afd he was not notable enough to be even mentioned in the Double You article except in a song title, hence no redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please research issue and recommend rather than relisting or closing for lack of participation. --Bejnar (talk) 04:59, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randyn Julius[edit]

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

Promotional article fails WP:BAND. If you disagree, please explain specifically how this qualifies under WP:BAND. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND and is Promotional. Further Randyn Julius started his music career in 2011 and some his albums are yet to come and it also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:21, 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 08:57, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note:' I normally wouldn't relist a non-BLP a second time, but I'm not convinced a soft delete would stick here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fact that the subject fails WP:BAND is what I can't ignore. WP:TOOSOON, if ever. Wikicology (talk) 09:08, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoos In Treble[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable musical group lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 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 09:34, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:13, 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 speedy delete. Blatant advertising per CSD G11 Philg88 ^♦talk 17:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhep tours and travels[edit]

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

No references, no category's not relevant enough to be an article. May be added in the future, if references are added. Crazy131 (talk) 17:05, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias Bulaid[edit]

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

Notable of kickboxer not established. The article is very contradictory but the only Dutch championship supported by reference was determined by a non-top tier organization. Does not meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I found for him was routine sports reporting and he doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Armstrong (economist)[edit]

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

Assistant professor, no publications (yet?) according to his own CV, not notable per WP:NACADEMICS. bender235 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. For assistant professors, even at Ivy League schools, it is usually WP:TOOSOON for them to have accumulated the impact needed to pass WP:PROF. I see no sign that this case is an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WAAAAAAY WP:TOOSOON. Hardly any publications yet, he'd better get busy. LaMona (talk) 19:45, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kianor Shah[edit]

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

It is clear by the history of the page this article is an autobiography (WP:AUTO), lacks notability (WP:SPIP), and is intended to serve as promotion of the subject's business interests (WP:PROMO).

On its status as an autobiography, please refer to the history of the page and note that the original author's user name was initially "KianorShah." Also, please refer to the talk page where the only individual contesting a previous speedy deletion nomination seems to be the subject himself. This article does not meet the high standard for independence or neutrality as discussed on WP:AUTO for the reasons below.
On the issue of notability, it is clear this page falls under the "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" circumstances as described in WP:SPIP. As described, notability requires publication of works independent of the subject and without incentive. The sources listed are press releases issued by the organization of which Shah is listed as chairman and are clearly paid publications of promotional material. The author (and subject of the article), contends he is notable because he filed suit against Wal-Mart. As I discussed in the article's talk page, Wal-Mart is one of the most sued companies in the US and as such a suit against them does not merit notability.
On the issue of business promotion, I repeat my arguments from above. The sources are not independent and seem to be paid promotional publications.

As an autobiography which lacks independent third-party sources and is designed for self and business promotion, I recommend Delete. Aytea (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aytea (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This promotional autobiography's claim to Notability for the subject seems to ride on third-party coverage of a lawsuit against WalMart. Now that the lawsuit is apparently settled, I don't see how this article's subject meets Wikipedia's Notability standards. I come to this opinion not because it was settled, but because I cannot find any media or other sources that have discussed the case in the 40+ days since the apparent settlement. Nothing. Zero. The lack of 3rd-party interest in what has happened in the case makes me feel that this case was minor, not noteworthy and not a solid foundation to build a claim of Notability for Shah. Stesmo (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of the article faIls WP:GNG. The law suit is of no encyclopedic importance. Wikicology (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a G11, because there's nothing substantial once one removes the self-promotion. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments are invalid and a personal opinion of two individuals. Just because a confidential settlement is not covered in the news, it does not mean it does not merit notability. There is nothing to report on. The idea that it is self and business promotion is completely out of line. Multiple parties have contributed to this article. Over 20 independent reliable =sources without incentive have written about the person in question. Several domestic and international articles were removed due to Wikipedia policy. The original individual that prepared the article was not "KianorShah" but the user name was used as such. Multiple individuals have contributed to the article. Every instruction of an administrator was met by those whom have contributed. The article was prepared by an independent neutral party, and it should be verified before claiming otherwise. Insinuating that all 20 sources are "press releases issued by the organization of which Shah is listed as chairman and are clearly paid publications" is ludicrous. The number of times Walmart has been sued in the United States is completely irrelevant to this person's notability contention, article, or focus of the article. There has been coverage on NBC, DTI, Registered News, Hufftington Post, NY Post, USA Today, WIU, SIU, The Beacon, scientific journal and on and on the list goes - none of which are owned by "KianorShah", nor were there any affiliation whatsoever, nor is it all about the Walmart case (there are only four article referenced per administrators prior requests). The suggestion that these are paid articles is untruthful, without merit, and offensive, at best. Several topics, which have no bearing or relationships to the Walmart case, carry their own merits of national and international recognition (academia and business). For instance, if making the ALL USA Academic Team is not noteworthy, then what is? The list of reasons for notability are rather long and not about Walmart. It is very clear that these two editors have not read all the article and their arguments are without merit and solely based on personal opinion. If Wikipedia allows its editors to attack notable people based on personal biased or lack of knowledge on the topic (which is a national debate), then how can Wikipedia have double standards for independence and neutrality. The page was modified numerous times by administrators to clearly assure that full compliance is met including notability (numerous times over) and independence. It was accepted by Wikipedia and reviewed numerous times. There is no explanation for the behavior of these two administrators against all policies set forth by Wikipedia, which have clearly been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.235 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I point out that if 66.102.196.235 (above) is aware of a "confidential settlement" it is clear the editor is Shah himself, which creates clear questions under WP:COI and WP:AUTO as I previously referenced. For the benefit of 66.102.196.235/Shah, please understand that this is not intended to impugn you as a person, but simply remove an article that does not establish proper notability. There are many important, accomplished, and successful individuals and corporations which do not rise to the notability standards of this community. For further clarification to your question of "what is notable?" please read Wikipedia:Notability

Additionally, having a press release issued by a corporation you control, and having the release picked up by one of the outlets you mentioned, is not independent coverage and is explicitly excluded under the General Notability Guidelines(WP:GNG).

Finally, I understand your frustration, but please remember to exercise civility in our discussions. I assure you, all your fellow editors participating in this process have done their due diligence with regard to your article, and would not be participating otherwise. Aytea (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this editor is jumping to numerous conclusions based on assumptions and makes unfounded allegations without the proper research. It demonstrates that the editors did not properly read all the references in the article deemed to meet all notability guidelines. The fact that there was confidential settlement is public information and anyone with internet access can find this information out on the court docket (reference #11) within seconds. The editor conclusively states 66.102.196.235/Shah must be Shah because only Shah could have known of the settlement of the case, which demonstrated the authors inability to comply with Wikipedia rules – it is indeed public information. Same conclusion is reached by the editor who claims that the article was written by Shah because the user name by the author was “KianorShah” even though there have been several contributors and the author was clearly not Shah himself, so the idea of an autobiography is flawed. Further, he or she provides an erroneous argument about other public figures who do not meet notability standards, which is not applicable to the arguments he or she makes based on the Walmart issue and one press release. This editor constantly makes unfounded and biased allegations without merit, whatsoever. A comparable unfounded allegation would be if it was stated that these two editors have been influenced by third parties to protect dental management service organizations and deprive the leader of the opposition movement the ability to have a Wikipedia article for the people, and by the people. This is a nationally covered topic (reference 12, 14). There is fine line between free speech and libel. These individuals falsely assure that all due diligence has been made. Please reference all the other articles (i.e. DrBicuspid – reference 13 – a prominent independent national dental news outlet article, calling Shah a leader in dentistry based on notable accomplishments, the scientific journals reference # 20, 21, the vast number of news publications, domestic and international coverage, and so on). These two editors refuse to accept that more than several administrators have worked on this article and have brought it to complete compliance per Wikipedia rules. They refuse to acknowledge that it was accepted after many the corrections were made for compliance and keep referencing Walmart, which is a fraction of independent third party coverage. The proper Wikipedia action for a press release that does not meet criteria is to remove the press release/reference – not an entire article or the existence of an individual on Wikipedia. What becomes a more important question of interest is why are these two editors so persistent, judgmental, and are not exercising the rules set forth for an editor by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.148.132 (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) There is a contributor named Nobnosa who appears to be a Single Purpose Account (having only edited this page). 2) There is another SPA named Kstar. Each of these made very large numbers of edits to this page, and thus must be said to have an unhealthy particular interest if they are not Shah himself. 3) "Extraction Academy" is essentially Shah and two colleages. The "details" page just shows Shah. So it's his personal business, not an academic appointment as implied in the article. 4) The lawsuit is a one-time event, which does not contribute to notability. 5) Cite #20 says Journal of Chemical Education but links to American Journal of Physical Anthropology. No journal articles appear in Google Scholar under Kianor Shah. 6) Nothing here mentions that his name as given elsewhere is "Kianor Shahmohammadi," an important detail that is oddly missing. The two articles that I can positively attribute to him are under that name. Therefore: possible WP:COI, WP:ONEEVENT, and no other claims to notability. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Dear Viewer, This article was written about me. In response to the above statements and arguments:

A. It was not me "Kianor Shah" who prepared this article. The original IP address will lead to a person in Canada that used "KianorShah" as a Username. I live in the United States (California). I am not "Nobnosa", either - The IP address is from Washington.

B. I have requested a Speedy Deletion in the past, but nothing happened. Please take the proper action based on your guidelines and rules.

C. This was not an autobiography, as the individuals above have claimed. Although, the article appears to be highly referenced (almost every sentence and paragraph)and the claims are third party claims, therein.

D. Apparently, Journal of Anthropology and Chemical Education did not archive or synchronize with Google Scholar. They are highly reputable journals. The scientific publications exist in archive, but have been wrongly referenced by a third party:

Project Title: The Effect of Mesio-Distal Chamber Dimension on Access Preparation in Mandibular Incisors

Publication: Nielsen Christen John, and Kianor Shahmohammadi. Journal of Endodontics. 31(2):88-90, February 2005.

Presentation: SIUE School of Dental Medicine – Table clinics 2003.

Honors Thesis Title: Craniofacial Dimension in Small Anthropoids and Prosimians

Publication: Runnestad-Connour, Jaqueline, and Shahmohammadi, K. (2000). American Journal of Physical Anthropology (30). 278-9.

Presentation: American Association of Physical Anthropologists 69th Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas – April 14th, 2000.

Project Title: A One-Pot Synthesis of m-Terphenyls: A Guided Exploration of Reaction Chemistry, Chromatography and Spectroscopy

Citation: Anam, Kishorekumar T.; Curtis, Michael P.; Irfan, Muhammad J.; Johnson, Michael P.; Royer, Andrew P.; Shahmohammadi, Kianor; Vinod, Thottumkara K. Journal of Chemical Education. 2002 (79) 629.

Presentation: 35th Midwest Regional Conference Meeting of the American Chemical Society in St. Louis, Missouri – October 267th, 2000.

D. The Extraction Academy is indeed an Academic Institution teaching surgical topics via didactics, workshops, live hands-on surgery, and related clinical topics, to dental professionals. It carries continuing education credits, is endorsed by leading academic organizations, and provides for recognized certification of CE credits for the licensure renewal purposes. Faculty is appointed due process (i.e. majority vote by a board of colleagues) based on credentials and demonstration of clinical ability. Personally, I have performed over 10,000 surgical appointments and procedures in this discipline, since 2007.

E. It is true that there has been a settlement and that the case has come to a conclusion. This case does not define notability nor should it be the center point of this discussion, considering the volume of independent mainstream coverage on other unrelated topics in business and academia.

F. Article states in the first sentence: "Kianor Shah (born Kianor Shahmohammadi, September 19, 1980) is a Persian American practicing dentist, living in California." This is accurate and the name "Kianor Shahmohammadi" does not seem to have been omitted from the article, as contended above.

G. I do not personally believe that the authors of the article were "riding on the Walmart case" to demonstrate notability, as they referenced third party articles on numerous other topics. There has been quite a bit of independent coverage over the years that have not been covered by this article. A simple search should demonstrate that.

H. With all said above, please delete this article if it does not meet the standards, rules, and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.213.19 (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree that we can delete this. However, a couple of points. 1) There is no record of a request for previous delete in the list of edits to the page. I'm not sure who you asked to delete the page, but there was no prior deletion process initiated. 2) To be an "academic institution" in the US you must be accredited as such. Just doing training does not make it an academic institution. It can be called a training center or, as you do, "X Academy" or whatever, but unless it confers recognized degrees, generally under state control, then it does not have the status of an institution that is accredited to confer degrees. This affects notability of the organization. 3) The Extraction Academy has a total of 3 faculty, including Shah, no "board of colleagues" listed. 4) Oddly, the pages of the EA list other training organizations that are accredited, but none of those pages list Shah or Extraction Academy as being part of their programs. Although the ADA CERP (continuing education program) is listed on the page, the link is not live. Extraction Academy is NOT listed in the ADA CERP list of approved education providers 5) of the linked "organizations", one is to a line of medical clothing, and another is an interesting organization whose web site boasts "By investing $1,000,000 you will obtain not only a great return on your investment but also permanent residency in the USA ("the Green Card") and later on USA Citizenship for you and your whole family." Honestly, this does not look good. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I must respectfully disagree with your position:

1. I have requested a deletion of this page before. 2. Under State Control? Do you know how many organizations in the United States are considered academic and are private? 3. Board of Directors are not listed. I cannot find a rule on Wikipedia that it is a requirement for a website to list all board of directors and members to the Academy. 4. The Academy is listed and endorsed by several accredited training organizations. ADA CERP provider is issued by the Extraction Academy and therefore not listed in the ADA CERP. Please take a closer look before you make these kind of statements: a. Tribune Group is an ADA CERP Recognized Provider. ADA CERP is a service of the American Dental Association to assist dental professionals in identifying quality providers of continuing dental education. ADA CERP does not approve or endorse individual courses or instructors, nor does it imply acceptance of credit hours by boards of dentistry. b. Biologix Solutions LLC is designated as an Approved PACE Program Provider by the Academy of General Dentistry. The formal continuing dental education programs of this program provider are accepted by AGD for Fellowship, Mastership, and membership maintenance credit. Approval does not imply acceptance by a state or provincial board of dentistry or AGD endorsement. 5. The Website you are referencing, is one of the many sponsors of the Academy, promoting peer to peer collaboration. Are you contending that Universities and Academic institutions from around the world don’t accept sponsorship funds for expansion, operating expense, and international education? 6. What do you mean with the statement that "it does not look good?" What does not look good? It does not look good to educate others? It does not good look good to be a faculty member? It does not look good to accept sponsorship funds from other legitimate organizations? It does not look good to be involved with the United States EB-5 program? It does not look good to offer a government sponsored program by third parties? What does this statement mean? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.213.19 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"3. Board of Directors are not listed. I cannot find a rule on Wikipedia that it is a requirement for a website to list all board of directors and members to the Academy." The main rule on Wikipedia is verifiability. Anything stated in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable. Therefore if one says "Member of such-and-such institution", or "chosen by a group colleagues" then it must be possible to verify that fact. Unverifiable information can be deleted. In this case, I apply the same rule to statements in defense of retaining the article. It all must be verifiable. The other key rule is reliable sources. Among the sources that are not considered reliable are blogs, sites that are primarily advertising, and other resources that do not have any editorial oversight. None of this means that the information is non-existent. What it means is that Wikipedia cannot accept these sources as proof of the information stated. There are citations in the article that appear to fail the test of reliability (for example #6, #8, #11). This then weakens the overall reliability of the article, and thus to measure of notability of the subject. All of this is pretty standard procedure for Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental India[edit]

AfDs for this topic:

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

There is a lot of information in this article but it is almost all unreferenced and unsupported. Given the pretty evident non-notability of all the other Miss Intercontinental articles, I think this particular one merits discussion. Given that the rest of the Miss International articles have recently been deleted, this one probably should be too. Despite the level of detail I'm not sure this may merit an article. Mabalu (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete & Salt as per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ardee city[edit]

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

The title of the article is "Ardee city" but the subject is not a city but a small, very small housing. No significant coverage. I mean no sources at all. Fails WP:NGEO and general notability threshold. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 12:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a certain amount of (legal) controversy regarding this gated community. I doubt if it will be enough to ensure notability though: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. - Takeaway (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is: there is so little in the article page at present that there is no harm in deleting it. If the subject is notable, somebody else will create a proper page eventually. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a "city" as understood by the accepted use of the term in English, just a mundane apartment-block housing development, no architectural notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mundane perhaps for the some areas in the West but it seems staunch middle-middle class in India, meaning relatively rich, and spread out over an area of nearly 3x3km (see 2. in my refs), which makes it around the same size as a small US town, but then semi-high rises European style probably mixed with town house areas, meaning lots more people than 1 or 2 storey, single building US middle-of-nowhere towns which do get their own page. But indeed, not very notable as it's not an official governmental subdivision in a country with more than 1 billion people and cities the size of many European countries.. - Takeaway (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Takeaway: Good search! But the sources you mentioned are about events related to the housing. But nothing about the Housing itself. If we add those controversies then it will look undue i.e. not balanced. The sources are not enough. Jim Carter 04:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also just tried getting the name transcribed in Hindi but didn't succeed. Is there even a Hindi transcription for this project's name or is this one of those "English only" things in India? As Jim Carter said, the only sources so far mention only events and do not describe the project itself in depth. And although these events are inconvenient for the people who live there, they do not seem notable enough to warrant a standalone article called "Ardee City Controversies" or such. - Takeaway (talk) 11:14, 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 Delete. There is no evidence that this is beyond a neologism. An assortment of unrelated items like this would be a disambiguation if there was non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foodology[edit]

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

A trademarked neologism is still a neologism. There's nothing unique about the "method" - indeed, there are "different approaches" to the method. This is an advert for a specific company who trademarked the otherwise in-use, through and through the panda ₯’ 10:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this article seems to be designed as a tool to promote the use of a neologism and a not-so veiled attempt at corporate promotion. All sources list one specific organization as the source of "Foodology." As such, deletion would be proper under WP:NEO and WP:PROMO. Aytea (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ayeta, I appreciate the time and effort that you've put into reviewing and critiquing this article. I do have to admit though that I am somewhat confused by another message that you left on my talk page. It reads as follows:

Hi, I'm Aytea. Bfpage, thanks for creating Foodology!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It seems as though this could be a page of value. Good work with the citations. Needs more expansion of all sections.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Aytea (talk)8:55 pm, 20 October 2014, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)

So at this point, I am somewhat surprised that you went from giving me compliments about the article to nominating it for deletion. I certainly assume good faith on your part, but I was hoping after reading this message that you might be able to explain how your support for this article went to its nomination for deletion. I believe that all the issues that you had with this article have been resolved. Thank you again for your constructive comments related to this article and I hope we can all come to consensus on its being retained as part of the encyclopedia. If not, I would like to submit it for Afc.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - :I am the creator of this article. I explained my connection with the the article on its talk page. I contend that the word 'foodology' is not a neologism since is is not an invented word, expression, usage, or the creation or use of new words or senses.

Here are reliable sources, per WP:NEO, which I am willing to insert into the article to expand its scope:

A scientific theory A Scientific medical journal article that uses the term foodology A book in which the term is used another journal article Another journal article that uses the term Another book in which the term appears

Less reliable sources per WP:NEO, but still illustrating the world-wide use of the term foodology:

the name of a blog, the author has used the term since 2009, in a different sense used to describe a community festival A US based company who has a product line called Foodology a food blog with content from 2010 A food blog called Foodology A food blog based in Canada with content from 2010]A food blog A Singapore food brand Another blog called Foodology A TV show blog with information from 2004 Another blog A New Zealand blog An Indonesian catering company Another blogwith posts from 2010 android app A manufacturer who uses fresh food similar to the company mentioned in the article

This article is not designed as a tool to promote the use of a neologism and a it is not a veiled attempt at corporate promotion. I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I am not interested in its promotion. I am vain, but not vain enough to try to create a neologsim.

I am willing to insert these references under external links.

Bfpage |leave a message 13:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the above references and more. In addition, I have linked this article to other relevant articles and now it is not an orphan. I have not inserted any wiki links into this article yet. I trust you will reconsider nominating this article for deletion. Best regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 01:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article describes a random assortment of unrelated things that have been called foodology. This does not add up to an article because there is no coherent topic to write about. Sandstein 05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling together the 'random', unrelated things that have been called 'Foodology' is exactly the point of the article. Someone needing to find out information on the term will be helped in seeing that the term is in wide use and applicable in many fields. This article is probably one step above a dictionary entry since explains the wide scope of the subject. This article seems like a disambiguation page (which does pull together all the different subjects that refer to the title of an article) but there is not enough content to create the other articles related to the topic. I consider your input interesting and will keep your comments in mind as I continue to edit the article. If Wikipedia is to be a repository of information for the present and future, the article is justified because people need to see exactly how the term is used and in what context. Perhaps a little more editing is needed to better tie the content together. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 12:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my recent reorganization of the topics covered in the article has decreased the perception of randomness and instead helped to clarify the different uses of the term.

Bfpage |leave a message 13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the administrator closing this discussion:

If, after administrative review that determines that this article should be deleted, I would instead, like to submit it to Afc so that it can be brought up to the standards required to be included in Wikipedia.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless neologism for corporate food service. No sign of general use outside the circles of those advertising such services.

06:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk )

I still maintain that the topic of the article is not WP:NEO and WP:PROMO WP:NEO and WP:PROMO. It is not possible to provide information on all of the applications of the term without listing the businesses that use the term. I neither favor or oppose or recommend any of these businesses. The topic refers to over 21 usages of the term. This information is too long for dictionary entry. There is not enough content for an article on each of these usages of the term. The article is suitable for use in an encyclopedia. There is not an existing article which covers the same topic. If this article is deleted, Wikipedia will lose information that at some future time someone may want to expand upon. This article was patrolled, encouraged and approved. One goal of Wikipedia is to create an up-to-the-moment encyclopedia on every notable subject imaginable. This particular article can serve as launching pad from which others can take off. Admittedly, this article is a stub. But stubs can be relatively short, a few sentences, and can provide some useful information. I have maintained a neutral, objective tone in all the content I have added or edited. I have cited secondary sources (e.g., a major media article, journal article or book) for statements I written and have only restated information already existing in a secondary source. The article contains categories and links. I may learn more about it in the future, and accordingly will have more to add. You can see from the editing history that I am actively improving and expanding this article. I am just like any other editor and I have something to add to Wikipedia. Others just don't know it yet.

I have maintained a tone that is formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. I have edited for brevity. I have kept in mind WP:AUDIENCE by including information about the topic from all over the world. I have avoided the use of peacock terms in weasel words.

Concerning consensus in a discussion at an AfD

I do not think it is the main role of the administrator closing the discussion to decide between two conflicting policies or opinions. Their job is to discard arguments not based on any policy and they should at least read the article. In some cases editors participating in the discussion simply do not like the topic. In some instances COI is assumed and the good faith statements of the article creator are ignored. The only people here competent to judge conflicting content policies or how to interpret them are the interested members of the community as a whole, acting in good faith.

The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them, but close according to what most people in the discussion say. So let's take a vote. The closer has a strong view on the matter and he/she has joined the argument instead of closing. The closer has tried to affect consensus. If I wanted a place where my view of proper content would prevail, I'd start a blog or become an editor of some conventional publication.

Bfpage |leave a message 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEO. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sandstein puts it best: this article is essentially a list of unrelated things that are called "Foodology", not an encyclopedic article about the term that is supported by non-trivial discussion in reliable sources. Ultimately, this is a term that appears to have no coherent or well-sourced definition, and ultimately is a neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Maz[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete He's a non-notable boxer who doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. No significant fights or coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and NBOX.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Oceania MAX 2002[edit]

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

Preliminary tournament, non-notable. Final 32, final 16 events of K1 have been deleted via AfD in the past for the same reason (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World MAX 2002 Preliminary Brazil Peter Rehse (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete merely a results listing, a non notable sporting event. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another K-1 event with no references except for the fight results. There's nothing to show it's a notable event and it's already listed on the list of K-1 events. Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravy Truchot[edit]

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

Fails general notability. Minimal secondary coverage. Blackguard 07:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, not notable per WP:BIO, insufficient sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable per WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 20:37, 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 delete. Speedy deletion under WP:G7 Shirt58 (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Schneider[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines at WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. I was unable to locate any independent, reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think a case of WP:Too soon. JTdale ^Talk 06:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:17, 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 no consensus. No commenters actually explained a policy-based rationale for their view regarding notability. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JQT (band)[edit]

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

Band was active for short period of time, no longer active, and an insignificant band, article will not be updated due to bands inactiveness Emzidrama (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the subject is notable, but as you said, it will stop being interesting. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:52, 18 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, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanzaib Abbasey[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Nil results on Google. Mar4d (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Also probably needs the subjects' name in local languages / scripts Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable and borderline BLP vio. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 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 no consensus. I would suggest continuing the refactoring discussion. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of over-the-air broadcasters in English-speaking countries[edit]

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

I'm really struggling to understand the actual encyclopedic value of this list as constituted. The inclusion criteria here are that as long as the listed country has an English-speaking community, then all of its OTA television networks are listed here even if those networks themselves actually broadcast in French or Spanish or Chinese instead. Wikipedia does not exist as a venue for compiling lists of every thing it would technically be possible to compile a list of — while a list of broadcasters compiled by the language of the broadcaster would certainly be a legitimately encyclopedic thing to have, a list that starts from a (non-exclusive) language of the country and then proceeds to include non-English broadcasters in those countries too is just WP:TRIVIA at best, and approaches WP:INDISCRIMINATE at worst. And a "language of the broadcaster" list wouldn't have this title, either, so it's not just a matter of removing the non-English networks from the list. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom gives a number of alternatives to deletion but gives no strong justification as to why deletion is preferred. I personally prefer to rename as List of English over-the-air broadcasters and remove non-English stations. ~KvnG 13:15, 17 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, Natg 19 (talk) 06:07, 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 merge to Arthur Schopenhauer. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate[edit]

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

This has been around for a while but I only just noticed it on the daily updates because of a page move. As noted on the talk page it's just a sequence of quotes, connected by original research based on Schopenhauer's (and Kant's) writing itself. I.e. no proper encyclopaedic content, not even enough to merge into another article - not that there's an obvious one on e.g. "proofs of the parallel postulate". JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arthur Schopenhauer. I think it's appropriate to use primary sources for a philosopher's views on a topic such as this, and I wouldn't say the selection of quotes is OR, it's basically just what everyone has to do when deciding what gets into an article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:11, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arthur Schopenhauer There's nothing to show this merits its own article, but a redirect makes sense to me. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:08, 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 Julie Vega. This is more or less a redirect-flavored SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Love (Julie Vega song)[edit]

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

Only link this goes to is the singer and no links go here-a redirect to the singer or a delete would be the best (since actually a redirect would be pointless) Wgolf (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also deleted the link to the Filipino page as it went to a DAB page instead of this. Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Julie Vega, the track listing is on the artists page already. Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 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 – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zombierella[edit]

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

Unremarkable fictional character produced by an unremarkable company, with no independent sources. Google revealed a lot of social media sites and primary source videos, but no independent reliable source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Article creator removed prod without explanation. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. Not notable. No independent sources. 1st time I've seen an ebay link as content! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments. Lack of reliable coverage in my own search and article reads as promotional. Path2more (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Stonehill's Hat[edit]

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

A non-notable (but amusing) release from a notable artist Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:38, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Born Twice[edit]

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

Non-notable early release from a notable artist. Most notable portion is that Pat Boone helped fund the album, which isn't even mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:37, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get Me Out of Hollywood[edit]

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

Non-notable early release from a notable artist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the only thing notable is the fact that it took 30 (!) years to get released. Now if there is a list of longest to get released after the recording I would say redirect to that. Wgolf (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There were a few copies released to reviewers, etc. There was an underground market for the recording. It broke open when people started sharing it electronically. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:37, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arina Avram[edit]

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

The subject doesn't have the level of coverage demanded by WP:AUTHOR. Let's look at the sources presented.

An article written by the subject. Meaningless in terms of showing notability.
Another article. Also meaningless.
Mention in a list of names on a blog. Needless to say, meaningless.
A book review on a blog. Meaningless!
A citation on a blog. Meaningless...
A book sale page, and another. Can we say meaningless?

OK, so that leaves this, a five-sentence review in a fairly shady online-only newspaper; and this, an equally brief review in a slightly more credible paper. (And I do emphasize slightly, since the paper was owned by Dan Voiculescu, who now sits in prison for money laundering.) Well, I believe that doesn't quite meet the standard: "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent... reviews". We need more substantial coverage than what exists at the moment, and that simply doesn't appear to exist, so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out Ziua Veche is not shady as far as I can tell. It is published in print as a insert of ro:Puterea. See ro:Ziua Veche. JTdale ^Talk 07:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JTdale, Ziua Veche is largely composed of ex-Ziua staff, which did have a reputation for shadiness. (Its main figure, Sorin Roşca-Stănescu, just got 2½ years in prison for fraud.) However, that is a matter of opinion and I won't contest yours. What is not subject to opinion is circulation rankings of Romanian newspapers and news sites: you will note that neither Ziua Veche nor Puterea feature on either (fairly lengthy) list. So, while Ziua Veche may be utterly respectable, it's equally marginal.

To return to the issue at hand: even if we accept the two reviews as perfectly legitimate, it's rather a stretch to say that because of them (and them alone, since there's nothing else of substance), the subject passes WP:AUTHOR point 3. I mean, how would the article even look after we stripped out all the unquotable material? "Arina Avram is a Romanian writer whose books Mari minuni, mari mistere and Enciclopedia înțelepciunii each received a review". That's basically all we have, and if I put it this way, its insufficiency will, I trust, seem apparent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't contest she seems to be lacking in sources in any case, though we are trying to look in English. Do you speak/read Romanian? JTdale ^Talk 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a native speaker. I've made a good-faith attempt to find sources on her in Romanian, but they simply aren't there, as far as I can see.

And by the way, the single-purpose account behind this article has also spammed fr.wiki, es.wiki, it.wiki and sv.wiki. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Orlandi[edit]

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

No external refs (provided refs are Facebook and YouTube only). No evidence of any significant notability . Fails all notability tests. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on a Christian is one of the many vignettes that creates Scuolazoo I also searched the internet and found so many things about him (it's also on other pages already proven wikipedia) https://www.facebook.com/christian.sparviero#!/scuolazoo.official.page/photos/a.120260717638.105268.47752417638/10152463436697639/?type=1&permPage=1 Marcux3 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD launched in WP:fr for lack of notability and sources. Schlum (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only links are to social media sites such as Facebook, but there are no reliable sources provided to substantiate this article. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but this is a good bit WP:TOOSOON. "Apparitions" do not confer notability: Noyster (talk), 10:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dayle Dodge[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Fanfare[edit]

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

I am quite fond of geek culture events, but they still need to meet WP:N. This one doesn't - a single reference of doubtful reliability doesn't cut it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:30, 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 delete. This comes perilously close to A7 as it is, but not does not reach it. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chumki Cholechhe Eka Pothe[edit]

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

Non-notable song. There are no reliable sources to prove the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, and no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 20 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, Natg 19 (talk) 04:49, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Environments[edit]

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

Non notable firm, promotional article The refs are either mentions or PR, the content with emphasis on listing every exec in the company & the firm's minor charities is promotional. FWIW, the page history shows a very puzzling way of starting an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, as creator of the page, but note that I was not the creator of the content; I just split it from the article on the generic topic intelligent environment, which had been tagged as spammy because of a couple of paragraphs about this company. Rather than simply remove it from that article, I thought it should be placed into on a separate page about the company, to be given a chance to show notability and verifiability. Well, it has now had that chance and failed. For the record, the original content was added by Daniellesheridan (an SPA), with a little added by Khooke before the split. It has recently been expanded by GraceDurie. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection to the marketing/promotional content being removed (a lot of this content didn't use to be on this page?) but I would like to see the page retained for the historical facts: their involvement as a key player with OS/2, and their AM development tool which was widely used by a number of financial institutions for developing inhouse software in the mid 1990s. I guess this information is not particularly relevant today, but their involvement with OS/2 is interesting history. Khooke 19:24 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I did a search on HighBeam and there are quite a few articles (121), mostly from the late 1990s and early 2000s. I haven't had a chance to go through them to see what is there. I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 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 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pota R Marudyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. LS1979 (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG and is promotional as well. That some band members have been in other, notable bands does not make this band notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 17 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails general notable guidelines as well as its fails WP:NBAND. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Clearly fails WP:NBAND and notability. Ireneshih (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dee Time. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna McDonald[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable person. I can find just about no information about her, and the article itself contains virtually no information; it's also mostly based on one source. What's in the article is not actually about her but about a short-lived TV series, Dee Time, in which she appeared in the opening credits. Dee Time itself might perhaps be notable, though it doesn't currently have an article, but Lorna McDonald doesn't meet the notability requirements for biographies. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying principal contributors: User:BONNUIT, User:IXIA.)Robofish (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave for now? Your comments suggest you may not be acquainted with the subject/background - for example, Dee Time was a massively popular show at the time (almost 50 years ago - when, of course, the sort of information the article contains wouldn't routinely have been recorded on the internet, etc as it is now). Might be better to leave it flagged in the hope the someone can pick it up - eg for an article about Dee Time. Rather pointless, in my view, merely to delete it.IXIA (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into new article on Dee Time - There ought to be an article on Dee Time before we can even consider an article on an uncredited bit-part. There's probably a case for adding a few bits of info into Simon Dee but clearly it would all be much more appropriate for Dee Time. Basically, Lorna McDonald appeared in a classic sequence, but doesn't appear to have done anything else to make her famous or notable. Her claim of notability is on a level with, say, Emily Firmin, the Bagpuss title sequence girl (although Emily has more sources on her). It seems that pretty much everything that is known about Lorna McDonald is in relation to this title sequence. I see this as similar to having an article on the subject of a notable photograph - although the image/artwork may be famous, the sitter does not necessarily inherit notability merely for being in it. For example, Adam Perry - the chap in L'Enfant_(poster) - is of very dubious individual notability beyond his being in an Extremely Famous Photograph. Mabalu (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Mabalu that it might make sense to have an article on Dee Time, which did have huge viewing figures, and that would be the sensible place to put this information if we tidy up the refs a bit. I've just just made a quick check online and of The Times archive and The Guardian archive and can't see any reference to McDonald – the archive includes the 1960s when she would have been in circulation, so I can't see any evidence she meets notability guidelines for a standalone article. Unless and until Dee Time is written, she is mentioned on Simon Dee which is where this information could sit. Libby norman (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 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 02:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I agree that it's the series that seems to have been notable and would support a merge to an article on that. EBY (talk) 02:18, 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 merge to Party Tricks. ...any appropriately included material at the target j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Party Tricks (season 1)[edit]

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

Unneeded page for a first season for a show that has not even started yet. Best would be to redirect to the show. Wgolf (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-also considering it looks like just 6 episodes, that could easily just be part of the page, no need for a season listing then. (which of course adds to how it is too soon for this page if ever now) Wgolf (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this page should be kept. Not only is the series to be renewed for a second season (as can be found in one of the articles), but it is also expected to be commissioned as a complete series.Mattom123 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-You don't know if it will be renewed or not given the fact that it hasn't started yet, plus most shows before they start that get pages like this just get redirected anyway to the main page. Wait until at least one season. Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also it could just have a page for list of episodes also. Wgolf (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Party Tricks. If and when there are enough episodes and/or seasons to justify splitting this out into separate articles, we can do it. But at the moment we have six confirmed episodes, and a lot of things that could happen given the generally skittish nature of Australian TV networks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Per Lankivei. Only one episode has been shown so far and I'm not necessarily sure if it needs an article for itself for the time being. GamerPro64 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 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 02:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Financial Ltd[edit]

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

This article relies entirely on primary sources. No indication of notability.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD. ansh666 12:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 23:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)--114.81.255.40 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)--114.81.255.41 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent company Kaplan, Inc. Some articles link to it other than through template:Graham (nav box for the corporate group), e.g. bio of Jeremy Hanley. – Fayenatic London 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can be improved. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a sufficiently large division of the company to cover separately; trying to cover all the operations and acquisitions of the entire company in a single article would be exceptionally cumbersome. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 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 10:33, 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 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Divisions of large businesses can have their own articles. Notability is obvious. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:21, 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 delete. Despite Milowent sources to the contrary, the delete rationales mentioned those sources are rather trivial in mention and fails WP:GNG. The WP:CRYSTAL concerns are valid here, as we can't tell if the phrase will affect a football player career. Also I'm surprised WP:NOT#NEWS is not mentioned in this debate, as this clearly fails it. Secret ^account 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck her right in the pussy[edit]

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

It was suggested at merge discussion Talk:List_of_Internet_phenomena#Proposed_merge_with_Fuck_her_right_in_the_pussy that this be brought to WP:AFD. Additionally, that merge discussion has devolved into a quasi-deletion discussion with users commenting keep/delete instead of support/oppose merge somewhere. Therefore, bringing here to assess consensus from the community as to what should be done with the page. — Cirt (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I linked to this AfD at Talk:Jameis Winston. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and oppose merge: I have added several sources to the article that I hope demonstrates enough notability for a standalone article. Only the other day, live coverage of the Keene Pumpkin Fest Riot was interrupted when a rioter shouted the phrase during WHDH TV's live coverage.[23] Eddymason (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify my opposition to a merge. This is not just an Internet meme, it is more like an IRL meme, in that local old media coverage of something or other is "photobombed"/videobombed(?) by someone uttering the phrase. The phrase caused the interruption of at least three live broadcasts, and it is these videos, along with the original three, that have gone viral. "List of internet phenomena", is wrong because of an IRL repercussion for a sports figure who used the term. Viral video seems like a more appropriate merge target, if the wind blows that way, but I support a stand-alone article. Eddymason (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The evidence provided so far in support of notability is not sufficient. Sources repeating just that "Someone said it on TV" are insufficient. Edison (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Partly, this is because of WP:NOT#DICT, point 3. We don't have pages about every phrase that gets some attention. Per WP:CRYSTAL, perhaps this meme will gain more prominence in the future, so deletion now is no obstacle to recreating the page again later. But, right now, we have just a few anecdotal reports of some people shouting it, with most of those people otherwise non-notable. As such, it seems to me that the page also fails WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and oppose merge SEVEN independent news sources say this thing is an internet meme. Bogger (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine sources currently cited on the page. The first is from the "Know Your Meme" website, and the sixth is from "Gawker". Those two sources say that it is a meme, but they are borderline as RS, and don't really establish passage of WP:GNG. The remaining seven cited sources are reports of incidents in which the phrase was shouted in public. There was one instance when the shouter, a college football player, is a notable person, but none of the other shouters are. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is going to be covered (ETA: in Wikipedia) somewhere. Its been a subject of continuing coverage for some months now, with coverage in Gawker, Mediaite, The Daily Beast, etc. We can come back in 2-5 years to decide whether there is an appropriate merge subject that makes sense. From a long term context, the coverage of this is similar to that of 2 Girls 1 Cup seven years ago and goatse.cx fourteen years ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the future it will be covered somewhere. But, for now, WP:CRYSTAL applies. The other memes are WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying it is already covered in the press; I mean it is going to therefore be covered somewhere on wikipedia. Especially when you realize you can't just search the term as is to find sources, many euphemisms get used to avoid putting "fuck her right in the pussy" in print.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but let's find those hypothetical sources and determine whether or not they satisfy GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, it might have lots of sources, but this appears to be cruft here. Borderline miscellaneous information as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but don't delete. This particular meme belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, as Milowent says above: it's not every meme that potentially alters the career of a Heisman Trophy winner. I don't know that a separate article will be needed in the long run, but I don't think deletion should be on the table. And I am just thrilled that this article title will now inhabit my watchlist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:CRYSTAL. It may "potentially alter" his career, but we do not yet know whether it has altered it in any meaningful way. So far, it just got him suspended for one game. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the extent of the coverage, I think that's enough to justify its inclusion on the list, at least.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since what we are discussing in this AfD is the standalone page, it sounds to me like you might not entirely object to deleting the page, so long as the meme continues to be listed on the List of Internet phenomena page. Nothing in this discussion has any effect on the list page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is relevant, because the edit history of this article merits keeping. WP:PRESERVE and all that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory note, in case any editors are unfamiliar with AfD. The discussion here is only about the Fuck her right in the pussy page. The listing of the phrase at List of Internet phenomena is not affected by the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Noting that it could also or instead be covered at Viral video, a delete consensus here would also have no effect on the Viral video page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge a summarized version to List of Internet phenomena. There are sources, but they merely report about when the phrase has been blurted out publicly. If I were king of the world, I would like to see it deleted altogether, not because it's obscene, but because it was created as part of a self-promoting viral marketing campaign. The phrase itself is notable enough, but since were not the news, we don't need an article that documents every indiscriminate use of the phrase as if we were a Twitter feed.- Mr X 18:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete based on comment from Wikidemon.- Mr X 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using policy WP:IGNORE. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tryptofish's well-stated rationale above. Until I see evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources regarding this "meme," and not just random internet mentions of it, my !vote will remain a solid "delete." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete miscellaneous minor incidents do nto make a meme. This is not so notably vu;gar as to be appropriate for noticing in an encyclopedia. We cover the fdigusting oartts of the world, to be sure, but wee dont't make a special effort to seek them out. The rule is NOT TABLOID.. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK. I fear that the delete folks are simply not aware of how widespread and covered this has become -- literally hundreds of broadcasts have already been interrupted this year by people yelling "fuck her right in the pussy" in the shot. It is an epidemic. Articles from reputable news sources about the meme and its origin include (but are not limited to): Mediaite (May 19, 2014); Gawker (May 19, 2014); Deadspin (June 29, 2014), Daily Dot (July 8, 2014); ABC Tampa, FL (July 3, 2014); Buzzfeed (July 2, 2014). And of course there has been the extensive coverage of Jameis Winston,[24][25][26][27] one of the most famous current American college football players, and he only did it last month because it is now a commonplace thing to shout among young males. Compilations of the events abound (a few of these clips are staged, but almost all are not): [28][29][30][31][32][33]. I do believe the subject passes WP:GNG as detestable as it may be, and more notable than past memes like 2 Girls 1 Cup.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how frustrating AfD discussions can sometimes be, but I do not think that either distaste for the phrase or lack of awareness of the source material plays a significant role in the delete arguments. There is little argument that Winston is a notable person and that there is reliable sourcing for a single event when he said it – and it has a brief section on his bio page. But WP:GNG requires reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and you are not providing any in your comment here. (I'd say maybe that one ABC source comes close, but that's about it.) Nothing you linked to here is a secondary source, and you've given us a long list of YouTube uploads. GNG requires more than just the existence of a lot of stuff that people have posted online. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is inherently arbitrary for closer cases, I mean, this got kept with one puff piece blogger entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi. Of course whether someone likes a subject can have some effect on an AfD outcome; we don't worry about BLPs on vanilla people with some sourcing, but even Belle Knox got some delete votes in her 2nd AfD. So it goes. I didn't just give you youtube uploads (which is a questionable phrasing, youtube is simply hosting 100s of clips of TV broadcasts being interrupted; I didn't argue those show notability, just to get people to wrap their minds around the scope of this thing). I gave a sampling of reliable sources independent of the subject, e.g., Mediaite, Gawker, etc.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's awesome. Alex (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT basically says to back up your argument with some sort of reasoning about the article itself. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ do Wikipedia editors know what fun is? Alex (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do: Alexsautographs, I think you are awesome! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add it in the List of Internet phenomena. Since it has listed some famous memes as well. It is only logical that we include this because Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia for global users. -Fowl_vet
Note — I's not a good merger candidate. The list of Internet phenomena is a list article, intended as a comprehensive catalog. The primary criteria for inclusion in that list are that the subject is notable, and that it is indeed an Internet phenomenon / meme / viral video, etc. If the subject is notable it's probably worth its own article, and we shouldn't stuff the content somewhere else as a holding pen. If the result here is keep, then subject to editorial discretion over there, it may be suitable to add a brief description and link to this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: It's definitely prevalent, but there's not enough reliable sourcing to warrant keeping this. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this meme just isn't quite notable enough for a stand alone article. --Rotten regard 22:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Olmsted[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player who never made it to the majors. GNG might be possible on this one, but currently all I'm seeing is one portland paper source. As is, I don't think that's quite enough, though on this one I say delete rather weakly. Wizardman 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the sources provided I'm currently Neutral on this one. The fact that he's not noted in the B-R stats for that year is a concern, but they aren't 100% accurate on non-MLB stuff. He's on the line for GNG for me if I go by that, so if people think he passes it I can understand that. Wizardman 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I remember there was a bit of a "thing" with this pitcher in the 2012-13 offseason. There is some coverage relating to it: [34][35] However, unless I or someone else find more of it, I'll agree with Wizardman on a weak delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the source I put below, and the possibility that he did pitch in NPB before the Hawks released him, I'll say keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I want to keep this one and i'm not even really sure why, but I can't find any coverage to pass GNG, so i'm gonna have to go delete.--Yankees10 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league pitcher. Alex (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Weak keep There may be just enough coverage out there to merit an article. Alex (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per WP:BASEBALL/N, part 2:
Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team.

Subject played (click on View Full Bio) three games for the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks a team of the Nippon Professional Baseball, and thus is considered notable per the guideline as the subject has played in a major league game. Subject of this article might be considered minor league here in The States, but not in Japan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue. I see no other mentions of him playing in Japan. Baseball Reference maintains stats on NPB, but says nothing about Olmsted playing there. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this implies that he did, but I still don't see actual evidence of it. But, the source will be enough for me to change my vote to keep based on coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He signed an Ikusei contract, which as far as I know is like a "minor league contract" in the USA. I would imagine he only played in ni-gun, rather than for the big league team.[36] EDIT: My assumption is corroborated here: [37] Alex (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say he pitched in the minor leagues affiliate for the Softbank Hawks. The source that I had linked, does say he appeared in three games for the Softbank Hawks, that appears to be enough to pass notability requirements for baseball players.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing one source. Great. Rationality and common sense suggest otherwise. Alex (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is this RS that says that the subject played for the Softbank Hawks, that satisfies the baseball notability requirement, it does not say minor league in the source, and I am not going to assume it does.

There is also this reference: Thomas, Kevin (27 August 2012). "Sea Dogs pitcher a lesson in perseverance". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved 19 October 2014. Olmsted eventually signed with the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks in Japan, pitching in both minor league and major league games.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article says he pitched in the minors, but makes no mention of him pitching with the big league club. Same with this one and this one and this one. Baseball-Reference doesn't list him as playing with the team, nor does The Baseball Cube. Perhaps he was with the big league team on the roster for three games, or he worked out with them briefly, or - more than likely - he pitched three games for the ni-gun team, but there is no evidence of him actually playing in NPB. But...all these articles we're finding seems to indicate he may just pass GNG anyway. Alex (talk) 21:14, 19 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 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To state that the subject only pitched in the minor league in Japan is speculation or possibly original research. Other editors found sources verifying that the subject did pitch in minor league games in Japan. At the same time I have found sources that verify that the subject played at the major league level in Japan, at least for three games. Thus based on what can be verified the subject meets notability requirements for professional baseball players.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not speculation nor is it original research, it pretty plainly spells it out in the references I listed. If he pitched in the Japanese major leagues, please post statistics of the games he pitched in. Alex (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on sourcing saying he played in NPB... It's odd that Baseball Reference doesnt list him as having played however. Spanneraol (talk) 16:05, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kulkarni[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable achievements. Proposing for delete. Athachil (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a known name in the industry, but not very famous in public domain. Maybe some more information can help this page. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I request you to please read the notability guidelines before participating in AfD's. Harsh (talk) 08:06, 21 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it fails! Delete as per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 04:16, 27 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, may be recreated if sources have been found (though, to be honest, to me it sounds like WP:FRINGE).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ain-ul-Haq Faridkoti[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Could only find passing mentions saying he is a Pakistani scholar. Would reconsider if someone finds substantial coverage in Urdu. Note there is no Urdu version of this article. LibStar (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the GNG with no significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable grappling event with no citations. Seems like advertising.

Procedural note: This was listed without the afd2 template (in a way that broke the AFD log formatting). I've taken the liberty of tidying this up as a housekeeping action. CrazyAces489 is the nominator, and provided the above (originally unsigned) nomination justification; I have no opinion on the merits of the nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:MANOTE. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: This is the nominator. Melchoir (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MANOTE has explicit notability standards for arts, styles, schools, organizations, and individual martial artists, but not events or tournaments. WP:NMMA doesn't have standards for anything other than individual mixed martial artists. If no specific standards for a particular kind of article are defined in the narrowly subject-focused standards, then the reasonable thing to do is not to default to deleting it. The reasonable thing to do is to apply general Wikipedia notability standards. This article definitely seems to meet them with all the supplemental sources this discussion has unearthed. Keep. -Toptomcat (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: struck duplicate !vote from the nominator above. The nomination itself is the !vote, and only one !vote is allowed. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ This is a well known event, but my search didn't turn up significant independent coverage. What I found either wasn't independent or was just reporting of results.Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sources have now been provided. Most are not independent or significant, but the volume is enough to be convincing.Mdtemp (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As Mdtemp said its a well known event - but lacking coverage. I sit just on the other side of the fence.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Note: relisted after original close, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid concern when an article has no sources. Thankfully, sources have been found during the deletion review by trying the right queries in the right databases. These sources describe the event itself:
- Teague, Hywel (September 30, 2011), "Make way for new wave of JJ practicioners", ESPN.com
- Snowden, Jonathan; Shields, Kendall (2010), The MMA Encyclopedia, ECW Press
- Garcia, Marcelo (2007), The X-Guard: Gi & No Gi Jiu-Jitsu, Victory Belt Publishing
- Gracie, Royler (2003), Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Submission Grappling Techniques, Invisible Cities Press
- Sheridan, Sam (2010), The Fighter's Mind: Inside the Mental Game, Atlantic Monthly Press, pp. 59–60. Two paragraphs of description, focused on the 2003 event.
- Buffer, Bruce, It's Time!: My 360-Degree View of the UFC, pp. 137–139. Eight paragraphs of description, focused on the 1999 event.
- Frias, Daniel (28 May 2005), "6>Grapplers to fight for crown", Press-Telegram. 674 words, focused on Renzo Gracie and the 2005 event.
- Frias, Daniel (30 May 2005), "Wrestling wins a family affair", Press-Telegram. 725 words, focused on Renzo Gracie and the 2005 event.

The above sources are enough to satisfy the General Notability Guideline. There are also peripheral sources that mention the event and speak to its reputation. These are somewhat less important for AfD, but they will still be useful:

ESPN "The highly regarded Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) was instituted by Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the United Arab Emirates in 1998." [[38]]. "The top grapplers in the world congregated in England this past weekend for the 2011 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. A bi-annual event, it's the most prestigious submission grappling tournament in the world and attracts fighters from across the globe."[[39]].
Sports Illustrated "A year later, he failed to let go of a compromised limb during a submission grappling match at the famed Abu Dhabi Combat Club world championships." [[40]] "Einemo is a Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt who shined on one of the sport's big stages, the ADCC Submission Wrestling tournament, winning the championship in 2003" [[41]]
Bleacher Report "In late 2002, Bravo entered the North American Trails for the ADCC Submission Grappling Tournament, a qualifier for the toughest no gi competition in the world." [[42]]
SB Nation "One of the most prestigious grappling competitions in the world lands in China for the first time on October" [[43]]
Sherdog "Started in 1998, ADCC is the world’s most prestigious grappling competition. The world championships take place every two years and tournaments are held in five weight categories for the male competitors. Additionally, an open-weight “absolute” tournament is held, pitting top competitors from each weight class against one another to decide the competition’s supreme grappler." [[44]]
Fox Sports "Galvao is a two-time world champion as well as an ADCC (Abu Dhabi Combat Club) champion multiple times over including a championship in the absolute weight division." [[45]]
Yahoo! Sports "A jiu-jitsu black belt, Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) gold medalist, and multiple time Mundials winner, Souza is perhaps the best jiu-jitsu competitor inside the UFC today" [[46]]

These sources demonstrate that the event is notable in both the ordinary sense and in the technical sense of Wikipedia:Notability, and they will solve the problem that the article had no citations. Melchoir (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Sources are plentiful. As an editor that has contributed to Mixed martial arts (MMA) articles, this venue is prominent in the world of Grappling - a core element in MMA along with Striking techniques. Winning it, is a very prestigious accolade on an MMA fighter's resume. Current UFC middleweight champion Chris Weidman UFC Official page notes his participation in this event, even though he didn't win a medal http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Chris-Weidman Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As previously noted, sources are plentiful and for anyone (including myself) who is involved with martial arts, this is a highly prestigious event. Deleting this article is a substantial error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.234.82 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not changing my week keep vote above but all the text above has not resulted in any improvement to the underlying problem. The article remains completely unsourced. If that doesn't change I can not see any claims to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N notability is a measure of a topic defined by the world-at-large; and not by article content including sourcing. Compare with what is said at WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which states,

“

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies...

”

Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commentThis article is one of many tournaments which show no signs of notability. There are passing mentions of the tournament in some articles but honestly it is a glamour article or even advertising. This article is additionally completely unsourced. CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IF a keep result is made, I would support merging the articles that were deleted into this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1998_ADCC_Submission_Wrestling_World_Championship but I still don't see the need for even this article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The tournament is generally agreed to be very prestigious. The UFC fighter profiles, as mentioned above, list mere participation in the tournament. A lot of the champions are big names in grappling. Here are a few sources that I haven't yet added to the page:

http://mmaworldexpo.com/press-release/ -Characterized as "Most Prestigious name in Grappling"

http://www.onthemat.com/node/9426 "Second best grappling tournament in the UK"

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/9/21/2441195/adcc-abu-dhabi-combat-club-2011-submission-grappling-bjj-why-should-you-care "Super-elite, invitation only competition", "The hundred best grapplers in the world" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertzyscowicz (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- To add: there's a documentary about the ADCC called The History of Submission Fighting in the works [47], which should cover one criterion of notability if it's ever published. One thing this discussion higlights is that there is no notability guideline for tournaments. Hertzyscowicz (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Paek[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No coverage in WP:RS. Begoon ^talk 00:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable tertiary sources, therefore subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Surprised that there are no in-depth sources from ethnic media regarding the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 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. Although there is scarcity of participation in this AfD, reliable sources were available to verify notability of this person. Some references have been added to the article.(non-admin closure)Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navdeep Singh (director)[edit]

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

Rather unotable director with only a couple of films, and not sure how doing award winning commercials makes him quite notable. Wgolf (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though he has contributed in only 2 movies, he has received enough coverage. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There are no indication of importance and fails the criteria for biographies of living people. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen [48] - [49] - [50] ? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Utopia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not convinced this meets notability - the 'country' does not exist - it was a pipedream which never materialised - and probably never will now. Alligators1974 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources seem to concur that while this was a scam and a non-existent micro-nation, its still a notable scam and a non-existent micro-nation. Things don't need to exist to be notable and once notable, they remain so (per WP:NOTTEMP). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111 and the rationale presented in the first AfD: the project doesn't have to be real to be notable, if it passes GNG, and this one pretty clearly does. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw the nomination I didn't realise it had already been nominated and survived. 'Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result' (Einstein) Alligators1974 (talk) 09:38, 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.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_%28development%29

[2] ttp://pbi.org.pl/aktualnosci/Blogerzy%20w%20Polsce%202013%20%2818kwi13%29.pdf

[3] ttp://www.kominek.in/2014/01/ranking-najbardziej-wplywowych-blogerow-w-2013-roku/

[4] ttp://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_Roku

[5] ttp://kanbantool.com/blog/kanbantool-start-up-winner

[6] ttp://steveblank.com/tools-and-blogs-for-entrepreneurs/

[7] ttp://books.google.pl/books?id=EpQlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT163&dq=%22Kanban+Tool%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NuHQU4XJCfHP4QSD44HgCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Kanban%20Tool%22&f=false

[8] ttp://books.google.pl/books?id=GbkcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22kanban+tools%22&source=bl&ots=zs3XIyNmyt&sig=C3zdyMv25LU0iIh4Qi3VryDfvn0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uVHBUsW_C-Gs7QbZzoAg&ved=0CHAQ6AEwBzgo#v=snippet&q=%22kanbantool%22&f=false

[9] ttp://collaboration.about.com/od/projectmanagement/tp/7-Kanban-Board-Tools-For-Project-Collaboration.htm

[10] ttp://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/information/2013/5709-110.pdf

[11] ttp://studentnet.cs.manchester.ac.uk/resources/library/thesis_abstracts/BkgdReportsMSc11/Rola-LucasD-bkgd-rept.pdf

[12] ttp://200.17.137.109:8081/novobsi/bsi-na-ufrpe-recife/trabalhos-de-conclusao-de-curso/2014.1/Uma%20ferramenta%20para%20calculo%20de%20Metricas%20Lean_Jessica%20Nunes.pdf

[13] ttp://is.muni.cz/th/418144/fi_m/dp_xchekhl.pdf

[14] "GoMolo profile".

[15] "IMDB profile".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]