Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTMark[edit]

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

Old article from when standards were lower. Mention in a book, but I don't see enough to pass our current standards of multiple, significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP, which is a bit of irony I suppose. Dennis - 2¢ 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Well known culture jamming/subversive art group. As much as I don't like linking to a primary source for AfD purposes, they've done a good job of tracking their own press coverage (which is a significant amount). See their website and click through the press section that accompanies each past project (e.g. GWBush.com project was covered in more or less all of the major news organizations, they were part of the 2000 Whitney Biennial, etc.). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important artist collective of culture jammers, with several projects that had media attention. This article is linked from several other articles on Wikipedia, so I don't see what good deleting it will accomplish. It is also linked to a Czech version.+mt 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG - I read a few topics on the page linked by Rhododendrites. There is significant coverage in international media. - Taketa (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found coverage in Culture Jamming: Ideological Struggle and the Possibilities for Social Change, an article about their WTO spoof from The Register, Evolution in Reference and Information Services: The Impact of the Internet, Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media (which is admittedly heavily slanted toward coverage of the BLO), and As Radical as Reality Itself: Essays on Marxism and Art for the 21st Century. I see many other hits available on Google Books. I think there's quite enough coverage here to write a decent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent analysis by Rhododendrites, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I did see it mentioned in some notable places (PBS, Encyclopedia Britannica, sfgate, NYTimes) but they were either all REALLY old (2001, 2000) or drive-by mentions in articles about other things. Most of the other hits were either typos for the word "remark" or primary sources. Seems like novelty non-profit that has gotten some press for simply existing in the early days of the web, but isn't notable for anything in particular. Their biggest claim to fame seems like a one-off doll prank (called the Barbie Liberation Organization, which should probably be AfD'd too).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak delete. Read a couple spanish links at random.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: - Notability is not temporary, old references stay valid. See WP:NTEMP. - Taketa (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: I'd encourage you to look at the link to their site I posted above. Many well publicized pranks/events/stunts/exhibits/interviews/whatever we want to call them. Many of the passing mentions of RTMark are in larger articles about their projects (like GWBush.com), which especially given the breadth of coverage and number of those events that received coverage speaks to the notability of them (but there are sufficient sources even if we don't count those passing mentions, too). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Craig (actor)[edit]

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

Apparent self-bio repeatedly created and deleted in userspace. Makes no assertion of notability whatsoever and is eligible for A7, but since it was moved to article space by another editor I opted for an AFD. I can find nothing that could evidence the subject is notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability via WP:RS. The creator, Whiteratxo, should be blocked as an SPA for self-promotion and WP:NOTHERE. He's made claims on his userpage in the past regarding big celebrities that violated WP:BLP, and the other claims of working with celebs and well-known people have nothing but air behind them. He's just going to keep all this hoaxy nonsense up and keep wasting people's time until someone blocks him. INeverCry 22:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lots of CRUFT and OR, but mighty thin as far as actual filmographic accomplishments (see [1]). Quis separabit? 04:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Román Rubilio Castillo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - After reviewing the comments by other editors here on this AfD, I'm going to say this article just scrapes the standards of WP:GNG due to significant media coverage. IJA (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played at least 80 professional matches in addition to 5 appearance for U20 national team. Was also top goalscorer for 2013 Apertura while playing for Vida. Chupu (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youth matches are explicitly excluded as a source of notability per WP:NSPORT, and the claim that the Honduran top flight is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG with articles such as [2] and [3] among others. Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 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 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Chupu and Nfitz and Passes WP:GNG per this [4],[5] ,[6] ,[http://www.laprensa.hn/deportes/760089-410/rubilio-castillo-y-lucas-goméz-quieren-anotarle-a-olimpia .He was the Goleador del Torneo Apertura de Honduras in 2013 in addition to playing for the youth team and plays for the top side in Honduras.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is significant coverage. The first article is a match preview, the second is transfer speculation, and the third is an injury update, all of which is routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out sorry I did not add the correct link .The 3rd ref does confirm he was the Goleador del Torneo Apertura de Honduras in 2013 . Rubilio, otro goleador “cocotero” de la Liga and this Rubilio: “El liderato de goleo es una motivación extra” and Rubilio Castillo y Lucas Goméz quieren anotarle a Olimpia in addition playing the national youth team in a Nation were Football is the most popular sport do think the subject will pass WP:GNG marginally without going in depth of the coverage in the Honduras or Latin American Media..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:14, 24 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 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources listed pass the GNG. Done deal. I admit I don't understand Fenix's take on it: the GNG is an absolute, and there's nothing in it requiring that a subject must pass a subordinate notability criterion in order for sources related to that activity to be considered valid. Nha Trang 22:04, 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 speedy close, because redirects such as this should be discussed at WP:RFD, not here. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorists win[edit]

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

orphaned redirect Fgnievinski (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we discuss redirects here? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:57, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do so at WP:RFD (though that was probably a rhetorical question). Seems like a speedy close is in order here. Jinkinson talk to me 22:26, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 22:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constanza Romero[edit]

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

~~*Delete as non-notable.~~ Quis separabit? 21:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Constanza Romero appears to have been nominated twice for a Tony Award for costume design (see http://ibdb.com/person.php?id=24771). In terms of notability, this might satisfy wp:creative 4(c). Becky Sayles (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I updated the article accordingly. I may make her a redirect given the paucity of info about her and the only notable thing being the Tony nominations (one of which was for Wilson's play Fences). Thanks Becky. Quis separabit? 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: AFD withdrawn per nominator accordingly herein. Quis separabit? 22:05, 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 Delete and redirect to Dog crossbreeds. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collie Cross Spaniel[edit]

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

There is already an article on the Collie and the Spaniel. To have a separate article on every single cross-breed of dog seems unnecessary. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is unsourced and doesn't seem to add any solid information – more of a point of view. I'd suggest some sort of Kennel Club or similar recognition, or multiple references, as per Labradoodle, are the basic requirements for any dog breed articles. Libby norman (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unsourced, doesn't meet WP:GNG. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog crossbreeds. That's what was done with Chiweenie, Dorgi, Corkie, Sprollie, Shihpom, Cockeranian, Bassador, Beagledor, Yorkie Poo, Schweenie, Goldador... Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Islamic Library[edit]

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

No indication that this website is notable per WP:WEB; only non-independent sources have been cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update from page creator:

I have included some independent references where the need for digital contents is highlighted and applauded for print-disabled readers. This site is a key resource to provide that for readers in multiple languages. Absence of this article may hinder their search for resources available to them on matters related to Islamic studies. In one of the reference, National Federation for the Blind has highlighted the importance of having publications available in digital formats.
Reference has been added in section on criticism
References to this page have been added from other relevant wikipedia pages (more to be done, a part of it is done as of now) including List of Digital Library Projects and Tafhim-ul-Quran.

On the basis of this, and its strong relevance to needs of print-disabled readers, we strongly recommend removing this article from the list of to-be deleted pages. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks from Page Creator: I have referenced relevant information on some other wikipedia websites which clearly show the relevance and importance of this website as it presents information which is not available not accessible from other places and it is right of people searching that information to know about this source. Examples: Sahih Bukhari, Riyad us Saliheen, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sahih Muslim etc. (where previously there was no information available to readers regarding available commentaries etc.)
There is more to be done on this to provide relevant information to readers. I plan to do this over the weekend.

On the basis of above and its strong relevance to numerous aspects on wikipedia as well as outside, I consider this to be a useful article on wikipedia. In coming few weeks, i plan to update the page with information about number of books available in different libraries in the form of a graph to show importance of this resource and importance of relevant wiki readers to know about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 03:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've worked with the creator to try to get this article into shape from the position it was in when I came across it on the NPP. @Nabeelsahab:, inclusion doesn't hinge on whether the topic would be useful to the public - Wikipedia requires evidence that the library is of significance. If scholars want to use your resources, then they can find the site online through traditional search engines. Rather, WP is a place where entries need to fulfill specific guidelines as to sourcing and discussion in third party sources. Please read these help articles before you add anything more to the article, because it already has a lot of self-references. You don't need to provide us with a catalogue of books here; that's for the website itself. If the criticism of the library is there in third-party sources with editorial control, it suggests the library is notable, and I'd say weak keep. However, you need to find those sources to be able to keep the article here on WP. LS1979 (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, I don't see it: almost all the sources listed are primary, and none of the others meet WP:IRS, and we can wave off any WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Meeting the GNG doesn't come close to meaning that there "might" be sources that "suggest" notability. Either there are reliable, independent, third-party sources that discuss the subject in detail or there are not. We don't get to keep conditional articles. If this one doesn't have such sources, then userfy it to the creator until it does. Nha Trang 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this website. I did try and find impartial secondary sources yesterday to justify it's significance but could find none. Many other Islamic websites of this ilk exist such as http://www.al-islam.org/, http://islamiclibrary.com/ and http://www.muhaddith.org/ so I don't see why this one should be considered special. RookTaker (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to easily find links to a number of digital libraries specializing in Islamic works. [7]. I also found the aggregator site Digital Islam that lists web sites but does not include this one. I would advise the creators of this article to see if they can add this library to that latter site, since it appears to be a logical place for one to look for Islamic materials in digital form. LaMona (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wiltrout[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Wiltrout certainly had a busy and accomplished life, but notable? I don't believe so. The majority of references available on the Internet appear to be in regards to his death or fairly local to his base of operations (Alaska). His claim to fame is he was a high school sports coach who had considerable success within his own state...not national success, just success within his own state. And it's not even a 'powerhouse' state, it's Alaska. Fails WP:BASE/N and, by my observation WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Alex,

Thanks for your involvement in Wikipedia. I have a few small concerns with your reasoning, which I will list here. There are currently well over 1000 individuals listed at Category:High school football coaches in the United States, and a significant number of them are of comparable notability to Wiltrout. Is there some reason for his being singled out for deletion? On the baseball side of things, his accomplishments are entirely comparable to Tom Smith (baseball coach), with the sole exception that Smith had a few years as a coach at the NCAA level. Otherwise, Wiltrout's article has much greater detail, and just needs inline sourcing.

You also mentioned Wiltrout's Alaska connection: does Wikipedia discriminate articles on American individuals based on their state? I work mainly in Chinese-related articles, so I'm not familiar with your protocols. White Whirlwind 咨 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep... The Alaska High School Hall of Fame honors and his recognition from the state legislature put this over the top for me.. A brief google search does turn up articles on him as well that should help this meet GNG.. User:White_whirlwind needs to do a better job with his inline citations on the article, but i'm gonna vote to keep for now. Alex, your "but its only Alaska" reasoning is pretty petty. Spanneraol (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NSPORT specifies extremely specific details on which coaches are notable per se and Wiltrout very clearly does not satisfy any of these (not even his high school hall of fame membership). That leaves the possibility of WP:GNG, but I can only find locale-specific sources like his obit in the town newspaper. It is pointless to WP:WAX about articles on other high school coaches. Some probably have WP:RS that demonstrate notability, but I have no doubt that Category:High school football coaches in the United States has lots of people that fail WP notability guidelines. Agricola44 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Sorry, but I don't see what notability guideline being a member of the Alaska High School Sports HOF satisfies. And recognition from a state legislature? Please. We don't give a presumptive pass to recognition from Congress, and the reason why we don't do that is that there are a thousand bits of blather from some rep or another, while the others snooze or catch up with their reading, "honoring" the retiring owner of Billy Kidd's Pizza or the County Beekeeper of the Year in their district. Nothing wrong with that, but that ain't notable. Are there any sources that meet WP:GEOSCOPE? Nha Trang 22:15, 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. WP:TNT. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daak[edit]

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

Article has no sourcing at all. It is also hard to decipher what it is about. I would recommend deletion in its current state but if anyone can clean it up and make it understandable to the average reader then I will be happy to change this to keep MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, just like MarnetteD I tried, but was not able to understand the article. Unsourced I performed a search for Daak clan and could not find anything.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Yeah Delete: What a freaking mess. Not quite a G1 speedy, but close. Unimproved and tagged for 3 years, unsourced since Day 1, explicit COI, and how this got gnome-edited all those years without being prodded I'll never know. Nha Trang 22:20, 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. SNOW.... j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF seems to rely on the existence of the term "science and technology" but doesn't offer anything but the most basic of dictionary definitions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - most of the "keep" comments in the 2006 AfD hinged on seeing how the article would develop - it has, in fact, been cut down since then. In the current state, it's still redundant and useless as anything but a WP:DICDEF (and vandalism magnet, for whatever reason). Possible redirect targets include Science, technology and society or History of science and technology. ansh666 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's nothing here but a bare one-sentence definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. st170e^talk 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete (or maybe even speedy delete under WP:A3), there just isn't any actual content here. --Obsidi (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Chinese-conscious me thinks of zh:科技 (a dab), but that term is at least a portmanteau. "Science and technology" in English is just straight up two things. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might make sense as a portal; certainly not as an article. -- 120.23.166.5 (talk) 11:35, 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 Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Onyx Tavern[edit]

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

Subject not remotely notable, article contains no sources whatsoever, and I did not manage to find any. Article exclusively edited by the subject himself, and bots. Ae Daily (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time….when it has more third party coverage, revisit at that time. 18:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Nathsir[edit]

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

Havent played any professional matches. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:43, 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 speedy delete. WP:SNOW delete given !votes, POVFORK and BLP concerns. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal[edit]

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

This doesn't exactly fit in any CSD category, but I'm asking for SNOW deletion as an unjustified BLP split. with an unavoidably prejudicial title. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that this meets the criteria for inclusion per WP:EVENTCRIT. I also believe that it's more appropriate as a stand-alone article than as a part of the main Jian Ghomeshi article because the amount of information that's being reported will quickly dwarf the rest of the article. This is what we've done in cases like Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and timeline of Rob Ford video scandal. As for the title, I've made it as accurate as possible (referring to the sexual abuse as "alleged"). If there is a more delicate way to title it, I'd be open to it. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NOTNEWS, given the amount of detail required to cover this topic, it can easily fit inside the subject's main article. Comparing this to Weiner or Ford is like comparing apples and architecture. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTNEWS apply here? Tchaliburton (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:NOTNEWS. It's not (1) a first-hand news report, (2) routine news coverage, (3) a "who's who" or (4) a diary of minor events. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. - Does this have the enduring notability to be an encyclopedia article, who knows as this is only a few days old. My opinion is will not, as thus far the only outcome has been a radio personality has been dismissed from their job, and they are suing their employer. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (WP:NOTNEWS #2). This is a top story with practically every Canadian news organization and has received considerable international coverage. This clearly meets WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. It's already apparent that this will have enduring notability. But if you don't think so, keep in mind WP:RAPID which states "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary." Tchaliburton (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP. If the allegations prove to be true, then surely it can be added in the main article. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, this is a content fork — 90 per cent of it just a repetition (straight-up copy and paste, in fact) of stuff that's already in Jian Ghomeshi's main article anyway, and the very little bit that's actually new is "celebrity reaction" quotes that aren't even remotely essential to the encyclopedic context of the matter. Yes, it's news — but this article isn't adding anything substantive to our coverage of that news which the main article about Ghomeshi himself can't already accomodate on its own, without the need for a spinoff. The time for a separate article about this would be when the encyclopedic content about it actually dwarfs the rest of his article, not when one editor theorizes that it might eventually do so — if the best you can do, five full days after the scandal broke, is still almost entirely just copy-pasted from the main article, then that tipping point simply hasn't been passed yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Inflammatory article title – At best Redirect to Jian Ghomeshi as information is already covered there with new article just being redundant. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no redirect) - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP, etc. as above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this point, the allegations are unproven, and thus, posting an article like this violates BLP. Snow delete this as it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate WP:BLP? Tchaliburton (talk) 18:24, 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 delete. Wizardman 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Kellogg[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Only coverage is routine about his being drafted and the coverage about his death, which evokes WP:BLP1E (even though his event resulted in him no longer living) and WP:NOTMEMORIAL – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with all the reasoning from the nominator. Considering all the articles Alex has been nominating for deltion, I dont understand why he created this one. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was about to take it to AFD myself, fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E Secret ^account 02:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William 16:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD G3 (vandalism). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David schoonderbeek[edit]

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

High school student with wrong letter case. Some claims are made about films and TV but not substantiated. Article seems to be written as a hoax. In any case it is unclear why this person would be notable. gidonb (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This article has been speedily deleted as a hoax. JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenscio[edit]

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

I have not found any reputable source that could support the notability of this company. A speedy delete template for G11 (promotion) was removed (two times) by an anonymous IP user and I think that a PROD could be opposed by someone. I'm nominating the article for deletion so that a more general consensus about the subject notability can be reached. LowLevel73^(talk) 12:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self-serving advertisement. No independent coverage from newspapers or journals.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm whose coverage falls short of demonstrating achieved encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep as it is reported on one website (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-06/news/54691305_1_quikr-investec-foodpanda). If another source or two could be found, I'd change to a solid keep. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional, non notable. The only source is [8] which does not pass WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of adequate sourcing and being promotional Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Jiwa[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable person. Agree with first AfD by User:Boleyn. NPASR Widefox; talk 01:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first AfD closed only because it didn't attact a single comment. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. It was created by an WP:SPA whose username is the Fjiwa, indicating possible self-promotion. It has been tagged for notability for almost seven years, so it is time it had a good discussion about its notability, and it is decidd one way or the other. I would ask any potential closers to give it a bit of extra time if it is not attracting comments. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Self-penned PR bio, making no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability that would pass any of our inclusion rules. This is so bad that if it were being created today, instead of eight years ago when our sourcing and inclusion standards were looser than Mama June Boo Boo's morals, I'd have speedied it on sight as a primary-sourced advertisement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 29 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, MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Willis, Jr.[edit]

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

He held a lot of positions, but as far as I can judge, none of them really push him over the notability bar. An obituary cites his long service on the Board of Regents of the University of North Texas first. If that's his best shot, it isn't enough for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the individual positions held by Mr. Willis I would agree with the nominator. However, taken in combination, especially the naming of the library A.M. Willis, Jr., Library at the University of North Texas, and the appointment of Mr. Willis as Chief of Staff of the House Veterans Affairs Committee moves me to the Keep opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep, but the opening paragraph needs to be edited to clarify notability. Insurance exec., etc., is not notable, and should therefore be mentioned later, in the article body. Willis' notability is from his civic roles as (i) LBJ's man in West Texas, (ii) Chairman of the Board of Regents for the University of North Texas, (iii) the namesake for the university's library, and (iv) Chief of Staff of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. I'll edit it within 14 days. — Eurodog (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. His role as chairman of the board of regents of the University of North Texas, having a library building with his name, and chief of staff of the House Veterans Affairs Committee are sufficient to support an article. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources appear up to scratch and the claims are strong. I agree with Eurodog about the insurance mention. BritainD (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. It's snowing, so there's not much point to continuing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Culture Bound Mental Health Difficulties[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic essay/chart that doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Without wishing to dismiss non-western cultures, a lot of it appears to be WP:FRINGE interpretations as well. I think it would have to be started over to be a properly encyclopaedic discussion of mental health in an Ethiopian context, or a discussion of Ethiopian cultural beliefs. LS1979 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources cited, appears to be original research, see WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR, unencyclopaedic. Basie (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax. I can't even find these terms in an Amharic dictionary. @Lul2lul: I will retract this with apologies if you can provide a source for this information. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced and unencyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - this is a complete mess. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I recognize a few of the terms (e.g. Buda (folk religion)) but the descriptions are OR at best. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: At least some of these are legitimate terms, while the rest (and/or their descriptions) didn't sound familiar at all. Abisho, for one, also has a different (if somewhat related) meaning according to this source. In any case, the article still fails WP:V. Agree with Bearian that WP:TNT is probably the way to go. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Servidio[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The Wall Street Journal website has no record of an article on the subject, and the NYPress link does not work (although it does appear that there was once an article there, it isn't cached). The only sources I can find online are either Servidio's social media channels or complaints about his Teletaria company's services. The article was previously deleted via PROD, but was restored (by me) at the subject's request; it is too old for the BLPPROD process so needs to be discussed here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's the NYPress article. Will add taht link. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NY Press article is a good reference, but there do not appear to be any more. This is where the Wall Street Journal claim leads: it's a letter he wrote to the author of a WSJ article. This CNN ireport was written by Servidio himself. Like the nominator, I can't find anything citeable. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 03:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - IMDJ2 14:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children’s Theatre of Winnetka[edit]

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

Prod removed "because many famous actors have came from this theatre" This is a non notable community theatre. Don't believe that their is significant coverage outside of the community to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – small non-profit community theater with only local coverage and even that is only two cites. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. gidonb (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be willing to keep, if it can be proven that this troupe produced multiple notable actors. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). No indication that this group has received WP:Significant coverage or that it is more than a place of local interest. Also, even if many famous actors have come from this theater, it does not mean that the theater is notable because notability is not inherited --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A7 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Bruijl[edit]

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

Director of a small company who fails WP:GNG. I can't find enough coverages to reliable sources that establish the suject notability. Wikicology (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per nom, unsourced BLP.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced WP:SPA autobiography. Multiple searches turn up no evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC) (Following from User:Crystallizedcarbon's suggestion above, I am also flagging this CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: since the article was not considered eligible for a CSD A7, I vote for the deletion, motivating it with a lack of evidence of the subject's notability. LowLevel73^(talk) 11:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Earth projection[edit]

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

Non-notable recently created map projection, may not meet General Notability Guideline, all sources are primary. Pokajanje|Talk 05:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are several peer-reviewed publications by Patterson et al., although citations are a bit thin. -- 120.23.166.5 (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator of the projection is involved, does that not make those articles primary? Pokajanje|Talk 15:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a borderline case, but there have been several publications without Patterson's name on them, though all by people who have worked with Patterson. My feeling is that something that has been the subject of several peer-reviewed journal papers by different scientists probably should be given the benefit of doubt. It has adequate references and is not a case of self-promotion, so I don't see what would be accomplished by deleting the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:24, 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Octopus Recruitment Ltd[edit]

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

self referencing CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The listed awards are non-notable in their own right and the minimal coverage that I can find on the firm relates just to doing a deal with a client firm. In sum, a firm going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete They exist, WP isn't a business directory. There's no overlap of relevant notability between them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are no independent sources that cover the subject in any depth and too few sources overall. The article is almost entirely promotional, and the awards are of dubious. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.
Delete for lack of secondary sources. Could be A7. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly new recruiter for mid-level companies. We are not a a web host. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CPA Site Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/CPA Site Solutions

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

self reference. no notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self-serving advertisement. No independent coverage from newspapers or journals.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – An advertisement. And no notability at all. Famspear (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Coquelin[edit]

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

prod contested because editor felt that there being an article in French was enough to show wiki worthiness. I proded originally because it has been 2 1/2 years and all anyone has been able to say is that he is an economist. Literally everyone alive or dead would be wiki worthy if all you needed to do was say the person existed. Maybe this will provide the impetus for someone to expand the article. But as it is now, goodbye! Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:39, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have made some extension to the article (though it remains a stub), including 3 book references. See also the multiple references to the subject by Léon Walras in his "Elements of Theoretical Economics". Between that and the unintegrated text on the French Wikipedia page, there is enough to confirm notability. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly notable from the French-language article and the new refs added by AllyD. Bondegezou (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I am concerned, what the French article says is irrelevant to a great extent. Not only am I not sure I can easily access it, even if I did access it, I don't understand French so what that article says is useless. It is what this article says. If this article shows notability then keep. But potential alone, especially after 2 1/2 years, is not wiki worthy and it should go. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:GNG. There is no requirement that sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found multiple sources – some in English – with a quick search. He passes general notability even if the article needs some expansion and possibly help from someone who is a subject specialist so that his theories can be explained. Libby norman (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David, just to clarify. I did NOT mean sources when I mentioned that I do not understand French. I meant the article on this person on French wiki. I was able to find it and the only part I understood was his birthday and the day he died. So the only way I can have a credible opinion on the subject is based on what is written here, in the English version. Which, BTW, is improving. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just run it through an online translator. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator seems to misunderstand the purpose of AfD, which is to determine notability not to improve articles, and also the fact that notability is not based solely on what's currently written in an article. It does seem that this individual is notable, and that's all that matters. The length of the article at present is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I totally understand. Perhaps I was not clear enough or perhaps I was and Necrothesp simply needs to reread what I said. To simply say he is a French economist is not wiki worthy and I had my doubts anyone would improve it after all that time idle. That said, if this inspired someone to do some research and found something notable, I would not be upset if the article was not deleted. I call that being flexible, not clueless. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the arguments to keep were better: especially on the sourcing issue. Other stuff doesn't exist is a poor argument. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy West[edit]

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

I can't tell why Lindy West is notable. There are many journalists that have written articles for many sites that don't have or deserve Wikipedia pages, why is she special? CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Half a glance at the sources already listed in the article shows West meets the basic criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) several times over: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Why are they notable? There is no "why" in WP:BASIC. If they have the coverage, they meet the criteria, and we're done here. If you scroll down from there, you'll see "Additional criteria" such as "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" which would allow the article to be kept even though they didn't meet WP:BASIC. But West already meets the basic criteria so the additional criteria are moot.
It's quite true that for this stub to become a Good Article, the lead ought to say why West is notable, which you can glean from reading the many news articles about her (she has been the focus of much controversy about rape jokes, fat shaming, hipster racism, and other topics, beyond being an mere journalist). But that's not a reason for deletion, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete None of the sources cited as references suggest notability, and most are unusable for that purpose anyway since they are not secondary sources but written by the subject of the article. Of the three sources that are not by West herself, two are just trivial blogs, not usable for anything really, and the third is an article about her father that mentions her merely as his daughter. Just being a writer of articles that have been published in X, Y or Z is not notable in itself. No sources suggest that the book she co-authored is notable, and I can find no proper book reviews of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Notes section lists 19 articles that cover West in some way. Even if all of them lacked sufficent depth of coverage, WP:BASIC says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." These are not trivial or routine calendar listings or press releases. These articles mention West because she was the focus of international attention for her role in more than one notable controversy. Having 19 of these more than meets the "multiple" requirement. But beyond that, there are at least two which are do have deeper coverage: Seattle Times and The Telegraph. Only one of these would be sufficient, even if we hadn't already meet the requirement by having multiple sources that combined to demonstrate notability. So once again, the minimal standards are met more than one way, multiple times. Your assertion that all the coverage is either blogs or by West is demonstrably false. Your assumption that blog posts can't be used to establish notability is also false, per WP:NEWSBLOG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look at the strange "Articles West is mentioned in" section, and many are just blogs listing various articles (one of which will be by West) that are in other sources, often in other blogs, like [9]. And nor does having described "Sex and the City" as "a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls" [10] define notability! And there is non-notable internet drama [11]. There is a lot of drama actually. Drama-manufacturing to get controversy is no substitute for notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling media coverage "drama" has no relevance to WP:Notability or to this discussion; that's merely a personal opinion. Whether you like it or not, major news outlets have deemed West notable. This might be a good time to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions so we don't keep wasting time this way. I just added two more: a profile of West in Seattle Magazine, and winning the Women's Media Center Social Media Award. Each of those alone is also sufficient to meet the minimums of WP:BIO. It needs to be said that when you reject coverage of a social critic by calling it "manufactured drama", you are admitting that your motivation is that you oppose the subject's politics. We don't filter out Wikipedia articles on the basis of which people we disagree with. You're saying we should delete this article because you think West is wrong for raising questions over rape jokes, fat shaming, etc, and you think major media were wrong to write about her on those issues. Deletion !votes on that basis are not normally counted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, please start to assume good faith. It is completely unjustified for you to claim that I want this article deleted because of views the subject expresses. Your offensiveness in the above post goes well beyond the bounds of acceptability on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is how you get treated before you let the cat out of the bag. Nobody is required to assume good faith after you yourself have given evidence to the contrary. AGF doesn't require us to be thick. Here you disputed the fact that West has written on the subjects of racism, fat shaming and sexism. AGF means we all assume you at least skimmed the sources before you !voted, but then you proceed to let the cat out of the bag yourself: you haven't bothered to read before !voting. The opinions of those who !vote first and read later are of lesser value. Sorry but that's a fact. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had better start to get wise, quick. If you go around stating editors are racists, are sexist, and think rape is a joke, you are not going to be on Wikipedia for much longer. If you continue in this way, I will raise a complaint against you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. I stand by my assessment . I don't think your !vote carries much weight here, based on your own words and actions. This is not a vote; not everybody's opinion is equal. Opinions based on poor reasoning carry less weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note for clarity. Since the above discussion took place, Dennis Bratland has renamed what was the "References" section to "Notes", and renamed the "Articles West is mentioned in" section to "References". The "Articles West is mentioned in" section was originally named "Notes" until I changed it because it contained no actual citations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems kind of promotion-y and there's not much for notability other than the Social Media award. It could probably also be merged into Women's Media Center since most of the article seems to be about the award. If the article ends up staying, the section currently labelled "references" (formerly Articles West is mentioned in, I think?) should probably be removed as it isn't very useful and just appears to be a collection of mostly tangentially related links. And the section currently labelled "notes" appears to be the actual reference list. Hustlecat (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, WP:NOTCLEANUP means that surmountable problems are not valid reasons for deletion. And WP:NRV says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation". Hence the value of listing sources at the end of a stub: to make editors aware that sufficient sources exist, even if the article has any number of surmountable flaws in neutrality, tone, writing, layout or citations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hustlecat, I have been trying on the article talk page to explain to Dennis Bratland that the "references" section, formerly the "Articles West is mentioned in" section, are NOT actually references - but he is not listening. The "Notes" section was called the "References" section until he changed its name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability. “Why is she notable?” Is not a good rationale to me. However WP:GNG have answered that question that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In addition, the condescending tone such as You had better start to get wise, quick. And you are not going to be on Wikipedia for much longer By Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) is unacceptable if an editor is really here to build an encyclopedia. Wikicology (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor, a notoriously problematic editor (see the numerous complaints about his behavior here [12]) has probably arrived only to attack me, and is voting keep for no other reason than I voted delete. In the past he has AfD's articles I have created for no other reason than I created them [13]. Wikicology, have you forgotten that you have been warned on many occasions about imparting your unwanted and faulty "advice", as well as being warned against repeatedly posting links to Wikipedia advice pages when your own actions have shown you do not understand them. You quote the "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" but misunderstand it. It is not the sole establishing criteria to guarantee an article's existence - it is just the bare minimum standard. The presumption part is that anything without that minimum standard (reliable secondary sources independent of the subject) can be deleted. However, anything that passes that minimum standard is still subject to all the normal arguments for deletion, such as lack of notability, not suitable for an encyclopedia, etc. I have already pointed out that many of the supposed sources are not independent of the subject because they were written by the subject or are just blogs that link to sources written by the subject. In my opinion, sources do not indicate the degree of notability that is needed to justify a blp article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. And take all the the surmountable problems to Talk:Lindy West, not AFD, and take the issues you have with other editors to WP:ANI. I would be very happy to put this stuff to rest at ANI rather than put up with the endless sniping. Or drop it and stay on topic.

Second, one of the central arguments against this article is that "most" of the sources are inadequate, because they're trivial, or not independent, or some other reason. Pick any subject, and most of the mentions of that subjects will be tweets, Facebook posts, or blog posts by unreliable sources. It doesn't matter if you're talking about Lindy West or Bill Clinton. For every 5,000 word piece in The Economist or the New York Times, there will be 100 blog posts by reliable authors, and 10,000 blog posts by private individuals, and 100,000 tweets. There's more chaff than wheat. So what?

Sources that establish notability are a subset of sources that meet WP:RS for citing a particular fact, because WP:N has a higher standard, and therefore the one outnumbers the other. It's not a reason to delete anything. The sources that more than meet WP:BASIC include [14][15][16] and [17]. The case could be made without those, citing [18] or aggregating the coverage of West in the two dozen other articles.

The argument that it's unencyclopedic to cover West because the controversies she has been at the center of over the years are "drama" and "tabloid trash" is a value judgement about the seriousness of fat shaming, rape culture, and sexism in film and comedy. For example, the conservative National Review here dismisses Wests assertions as "griping". Wikipedia should be neutral on the question of whether the subjects under debate are serious or are mere gripes. Ignoring substantive coverage because we are taking the side of those who disagree with West is not neutral. Neutrality requires accepting substantive coverage on its face. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, Let it be the last time you will ever accused me of a biased argument. When next I found you doing this, it will be trouble for you. However, am aware of a revert restriction sanction issued to you on Armenia and Azerbaijan related article here. Such sanction is usually issued to a problematic editor. This whole thread alone speaks for itself. Wikicology (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, while the subject has received multiple mentions in multiple non-primary or tertiary sources, there appears to be very few tertiary reliable sources where the subject is the primary subject of what is being written, and when that is the case, gives the subject significant coverage. There is one sources, that goes rather in-depth, but it is an interview, so it should. Other sources are a paragraph of content(such as this blurb, but nothing that I would consider significant coverage. Therefore, it is questionable, that the subject meets WP:GNG. Therefore, we look at the more stringent criteria of WP:AUTHOR, while the subject has been cited at least once, I would not consider that as "widely cited by peers or successors". Thus, appearing IMHO to fail GNG and author, unless more significant coverage of the subject, as the primary topic of the reliable source, I cannot at this time support keeping this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand why interviews don't count? I would think that if a source deems a person worth interviewing, and they publish a significant quantity of content from that interview, it's because they think the subject is notable. If anything lengthy interviews should be near the gold standard for establishing notability in the news media. You could argue Vice lacks gravitas, but not because it's an interview.
And why are the following not significant? [19][20][21] ?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. No guideline-based reason to delete has been presented. The subject meets WP:BASIC per sources listed in this discussion, specifically [22], [23], [24], [25] (note that the first of these is acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG as the author is a professional with the Telegraph). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bere[edit]

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

Article about an architect, there's very little sourced biographical info (in fact none). The Financial Times article is about a 'passive' house in New York with only a mention of Bere's London house in the penultimate paragraph. He hasn't been the subject of multiple significant news coverage and neither has any one of his projects. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: clearly the article has only started, with plenty to be added in time, and the four references are good, despite the opinion noted above. Passive House is a notable design strategy, and clearly this architect is a leading figure of that in the UK. Warren (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 18:57, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is stubby, but there's enough references to establish baseline notability. --Jayron32 02:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent article proves his notability. Agree with Jayron32 that it just needs more love.CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:39, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky Baxter[edit]

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

Obscure sessions musician and Dylan sideman; like many sessions musicians, undoubtedly a consummate pro, but not notable. Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 19:02, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems a solid, working musician, but I can't find much in the way of sources about his life beyond liner notes that prove he plays music. Having a job is not enough for meeting minimum notability standards. No good sources means no need for an article. --Jayron32 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's likely more than enough coverage of him out there in the reviews of the albums and concerts he's performed on. This book, for example, covers his work with the Beastie Boys(!) in some detail [26]; Newsbank shows nearly 300 newspaper articles (many of which are likely to be passing mentions, but even if only 10% are nontrivial there should be a solid basis for an article. Sometimes articles on non-celebrities need to be constructed from many pieces and many sources -- not every notable person is Kardashian-class. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambell Kenneford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Private person of very marginal notability, article is sourced solely to a couple of interviews given several years ago. No lasting notability, no reason to have an article, really. Also self-requested deletion by selfsame person, per [27]. Jayron32 02:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. Marginal significance. - Taketa (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm skeptical about a one-edit account, not even via OTRS, claiming to be any particular person. Especially with pages like this around http://www.facebook.com/pages/Like-if-you-want-Cambell-Kenneford-removed-from-the-internet/370377908375

What is our policy on this? WP doesn't remove BLPs on request when its fickle whim decides to go after a person and will instead choose to doxx them (poor bloody Jim Hawkins for one, who never appeared in the Waily Fail or the Sun).

This is someone who appeared in national print media, the Huff Post and national TV. I have some sympathy for an attention-seeking teenager who then decides maybe they don't want it, after their Warhol is up; yet they're still running their twitter and instagram feeds so it's hardly as if they've relinquished fame. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is "If the article is about a person who isn't notable, we can delete it." --Jayron32 20:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to take such a simplistic view of notability, then their repeated mainstream media appearances make them WP:Notable. WP:Notability is also not WP:NOTTEMPORARY. So we might (for once) decide to delete a BLP on request (if you're gullible enough to believe such a simple request is from who it's claimed), but it's not for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing since April 2012. I agree that the subject's own (purported) views are not relevant. She's still not notable. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities[edit]

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

Prodded and deleted for lack of any reliable sources to establish notability years ago. Recreated when an editor promised to add reliable sources. No reliable sources have been added. Comments made by that editor on a talk page suggest he is basing that claim largely on coverage in a publication called Word Ways, which the article on Dmitri Borgmann notes was founded by this exact same author. Covering himself in his own publication does not establish notability. In fact, there's no evidence that the author himself meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, so that article probably deserves to be deleted as well DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even discounting the Word Ways articles, there's plenty of coverage in reliable, independent sources, including contemporary book reviews in Kirkus, Scientific American, and TIME [28] [29] [30]. Material in several popular and academic books, themselves written by notable authors such as Rod L. Evans and Yakov Malkiel, attests to this book's popularity and historical significance. Even the Word Ways sources are independent enough, having been written long after Borgmann's death, and anywhere from 17 to 37 years after he'd left the magazine. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just completely rewritten the article on the basis of all the reliable sources mentioned above. Will do the same for Dmitri Borgmann shortly. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a major work in this field. Wahrmund (talk) 18:24, 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 02:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The updates seem to bring it into line with expectations Jeepday (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Psychonaut's sources and improvements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable after Psychonaut's work on the article. 97198 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Well done, Psychonaut. DS (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Borgmann[edit]

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

Only source cited to try to establish notability for this person is a scan from Word Ways, a publication this person created himself DreamGuy (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. No shortage of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, including full-length biographical articles in Newsweek and The Spokesman-Review, plus book reviews in TIME and Scientific American. (Even some of the Word Ways articles are independent enough, having been written up to 45 years after Borgmann left the magazine and 28 years after his death.) Easily passes the first three criteria of WP:AUTHOR, not to mention WP:GNG. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we deleted this, we would logically have to delete Recreational linguistics and other related articles as well. And where would it all end? Wahrmund (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See WP:ALLORNOTHING. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But for what it's worth, so was the nominator's -- reliable sources establishing notability took only about a minute to find, which makes me wonder if they'd read WP:BEFORE. -Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references in the article need serious cleaning up. Some link only to the Wikipedia article for the journal (not at all useful - give a full citation to the article instead, including author). Others are not reliable sources (e.g. Kirkus Reviews - which review EVERYTHING and therefore are unrelated to notability). After such a cleanup it should be easier to gauge notability on this article. LaMona (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all references are available online. For those which are available online, the title of the article (not the title of the journal) is a hyperlink to the article on the publisher's website or some other authorized archive. This is the intended behaviour of the {{cite}} templates. Regarding the lack of authors, in many cases this is because the articles were penned by uncredited staff writers; again, this is in accordance with the instructions of our citation templates. If there's a particular reference you think is incomplete or misformatted, please bring up the matter on the article's talk page and we can work on correcting it. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we're discussing deletion, so I will continue here. #4 lacks a title. The Kirkus reviews (#12, #22) do not contribute to notability, since Kirkus reviews all books offered for a fee [31]. Those references should be deleted. Numbers 25-27 are not third-party resources, but should be considered primary resources WP:WPNOTRS Those are only appropriate in limited circumstances; I'll let others weigh in on whether they consider them valid in this instance. And the statement: "Nineteen folders of Borgmann's correspondence with Martin Gardner, dating from 1956 to the 1980s, were collected and are preserved in the Special Collections and University Archives of the Stanford University Libraries" is not what is found at the link. The link is to folders of Gardner correspondence of which some number (I'll accept 19) contain correspondence with Borgmann (among others) of some nature. For example, a typical folder looks like:

Box 68, Folder 8
Presidential Elections 1959-2000
Scope and Content Note Notes, letters, articles, etc. on President facts "History Computed", by Arthur Finnessey, 1983, 24pp, 3 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches (pamphlet) Correspondents: Kruskal, William Lindon, J.A. Card, L.E. Borgmann, Dmitri

LaMona (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the problem with the Newsweek article; I'll get that fixed. Regarding Kirkus, I believe you are mistaken. You've linked to the rates for the modern Kirkus Indie, an online service for self-published books, not the print journal Kirkus Reviews which was published from 1933 to 2009. The print edition, so far as I know, never charged for reviews. Regarding the Stanford statement, I'm afraid I don't understand your objection; the article claims that 19 folders of Borgmann's correspondence are archived at the library, and the reference is an official guide to these collections which lists these 19 folders (among several others). Simple counting is not original research. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's the indie Kirkus. But even without payment, Kirkus reviews everything (even complete crap), so being reviewed in Kirkus does nothing for notability. As for the "19 folders", if you are referring to the Martin Gardner archive finding aid, which is what is listed there, nowhere does it say that there were 19 folders of Dmitri Borgmann material. It isn't 19 folders of Borgmann material, it's folders created by Gardner of which some (19?) include correspondence or notes from Borgmann. We don't know how many Borgmann items are in each folder, because the archive hasn't itemized them. (Note that the collection is measured at "60 Linear feet"!). Perhaps it's just a question of prepositions: there are 19 folders in the Gardner archive with or that contain Borgmann material, not of Borgmann material. Of implies that the folder includes Borgmann material exclusively. LaMona (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews is one of the most-cited journals on Wikipedia (and probably the most cited literary review journal). That said, opinion of Kirkus in past AfDs does seem to be sharply divided—in some cases editors have enthusiastically and successfully argued that is reliable and confers notability, leading to the article being kept, and in other cases editors have enthusiastically and successfully argued that it isn't and doesn't, leading to the article being deleted. The best place to resolve the general question, then, is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. However, you'll note that all claims in the article supported by Kirkus references are also supported by several other references to indisputably reliable sources, such as TIME and Scientific American.

Regarding the archive material, I see that the statement is ambiguous and have changed the preposition as per your suggestion. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 28 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 02:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Psychonaut's arguments. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the first three references alone are significant coverage and there seem to be many more. For full disclosure, I was asked by Psychonaut to participate in this AFD, but the opinion is my own. --Jakob (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, with extensive sourcing as shown here. With reference to the discussion above, Kirkus is certainly reliable; one may debate whether a book that was reviewed only in Kirkus is notable, but there is no basis for demanding that content based on a Kirkus review be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pamahaw Espesyal[edit]

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

Totally non-notable TV program. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability/no references -- which mirrors my own search. Other than social media, there were just some peripheral mentions. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:40, 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 02:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The southern Fillipino equivalent of an American advertorial local TV show with a bunch of non-content filling time until the lunchtime variety shows come on. Filipino crufters; we don't need to catalog every show that appears on your local stations. Nate • (chatter) 11:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, have not found any non-primary or non-secondary reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage; therefore the subject clearly fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:24, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hau'oli Kikaha[edit]

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

Just too soon. He currently leads the nation in sacks and is considered a solid draft prospect, but there just doesn't seem to be enough coverage (the ones in the article and the ones i've seen are routine) at this point to pass GNG. Yankees10 02:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. Right now he doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players or college athletes. He may someday, but not yet.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:40, 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 02:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was recently named a Butkus Award semifinalist; that seems to make him notable.71.47.30.157 (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely being nominated for an award does not show he meets WP:NCOLLATH (nor does being one of 15 semi-finalists). If he wins the Butkus award, then I don't think there's any doubt he's notable. Currently appears this article is WP:TOOSOON but I have no objections to this article being saved in someone's user space.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyracle[edit]

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

DELETE as lack of notability. Less than 7000 google hits, 1 magazine list reference in google books. Content of the article is somewhat self promotional. Last release of the software was 2008 and it seems no longer available (I tried to add it to shopping cart). U2fanboi (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A search turned up how-to and forum posts, as well as a few incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:26, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:44, 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 02:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article to indicate any notability-- no 3rd party sources at all. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trade In Detectives[edit]

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

Non-notable website sourced to press releases and passing mentions; fails substantial coverage test. Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs trimming but the topic passes general notability. It has a number of hits from a custom Google search of vetted video games sources:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/pre-owned-price-comparison-site-trade-in-detectives-goes-live/0119776

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/08/new-site-offers-trade-in-price-comparisons-in-the-uk/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-09-uk-game-trade-in-price-comparison-site-launches

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a505266/trade-in-comparison-site-launches-in-uk.html#~oSIE7b6bhgxSp7

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-03-myth-busting-the-murky-world-of-video-game-trade-ins

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/21/this-weeks-games-news

A bunch of the other sources currently used in the article are unreliable. Don't see any obvious potential merge targets, so keep would be best for now. czar ♔ 01:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a blatant spamvert, with the usual slew of well-formatted non-references typical of paid-for "articles". All of them including the ones above are based on the same press release which accompanied its launch plus a very brief mention in The Guardian (also coinciding with its launch). There is no evidence whatsoever, of independent in-depth coverage of this company/website. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 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 01:44, 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 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promotionalism, just as Voceditenore says. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clogau Gold[edit]

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

Long promotional piece for a small company. Refs are a mix of a commercial site and coverage of announcements in the specialist press. No in-depth coverage in general press, and the article is largely unsourced. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is nothing wrong with specialist press, and it seems to have significant coverage there (in references already listed in the article.) Unfortunately most of the article is pure advertizement and is unsourced. Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP I think the right thing to do is to simply get rid of all the unsourced material, which would reduce it to a little more than stub size. I said "weak" only because I'm not sure if it would be easier to start the article from scratch. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry I should have linked to this earlier, but could not remember where it was. The relevant policy is WP:AUD, part of the notability requirement for firms, which says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" (it's tagged with a disputed tag but the dispute seems to be about making the condition even stricter). It's easy for a firm to get mentioned in specialist (or local) press: especially in the internet age many of them exist to provide complete coverage of all firms in their sector/area, so product launches, announcements, hires, anniversaries are covered like news. Notability therefore requires at least one general publication with regional or national scope to cover the firm.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: That policy is about local press, not specialist press. The vague phrase "media of limited interest and circulation" is not meant to include trade journals, which are accepted as reliable sources provided they have editorial oversight. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they are media of limited interest and circulation. It's not at all vague but very clear. If a general publication like the NYT writes about a firm it's usually notable. If Retail Jeweller (itself non-notable) writes about it then it doesn't make it notable. It's not about reliability; they can be reliable secondary sources. But notability requires more than just being mentioned by the trade press for retail jewellery.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: AUD was not meant to apply to trade journals, and the poor wording is one of the reasons why it's under discussion. Academic journals are also "media of limited interest and circulation," but the guideline is talking about local newspapers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 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 02:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self promotional article on the company. References are based on the type of Gold and not the company. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a mess of promotion and spam wrapped in disingenuous sourcing. While I agree that WP:AUD wasn't really designed to apply to trade journals, the trade journals in question have issues that extend beyond their general premise. Master Jewellers seems to base most of its content on press releases - none of the articles are attributed to journalists and there doesn't seem to be any sort of editorial oversight mechanism. I'm not even sure that the "articles" are ever published as part of a magazine. Retail Jeweller hires ex-journalists but their role at RJ is actually "working on bespoke projects for individual clients" - ie. promotion/advertising. That's fine, of course, but those don't make for strong sources. The source issues combined with the actual content suggest there's nothing much worth keeping here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:48, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piet-Hein Out[edit]

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

Probably self-promotion. Part of the article serves as a portfolio. Several sources are websites of Out himself. Issues unresolved since July 2014. Editør (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete I could not find one third-party among the references. The one potential one (Noordhollands Dagblad) is behind a paywall. All of the others are links to sources that contain his photos, but that are not about him. This is a hard one, because photographers, even good ones, tend to be hidden behind their photos and aren't often written about. On the Zirkusfan talk page, it sounds like there is an author who would really like to make this work. Userfy if there appear to be additional sources that have not been added. LaMona (talk) 02:22, 27 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 02:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Several Dutch local newspapers mention the subjects name in relation to his work at circusses, some mentions of his name under pictures on Dutch national newspapers. I found no third party sources that went specifically about the subject. I found no significant coverage of the subject being a famous photographer in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 09:53, 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 redirect to Khans of Tarkir . j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surrak Dragonclaw[edit]

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

This is in-game fan lore with no reliable third-party sources. better suited to redirected into a list or article, e.g. Khans of Tarkir or Magic: The Gathering storylines or other lists of trivial characters. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khans of Tarkir as a plausible enough search term and a page that already talks about him. Maybe bring over a sentence or two to expand his description on that page (though to me 'he's the khan of the Temur' seems like enough) JQ East (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 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 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - agree with nom redirect makes sense Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:48, 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 redirect to Wong Tai Sin District. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady's Primary School[edit]

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

primary school, no inherent notability. Long established that primary schools not notable in themselves _nonsense ferret 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wong Tai Sin District per long standing consensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wong Tai Sin District. Rather than wasting everyone's time, perhaps the nominator would care to brush up on standard accepted practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 26 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 02:25, 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 redirect to Wong Tai Sin District. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Walsh Primary School[edit]

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

primary school, not notable _nonsense ferret 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wong Tai Sin District per long standing consensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wong Tai Sin District. Rather than wasting everyone's time, perhaps the nominator would care to brush up on standard accepted practice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 26 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 02:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most unique, historic, or unusual primary schools are presumed non-notable. Not sure why this was held over for a second week of snowfall. Carrite (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statehouse News Online[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. I could only find one such source (Pew) and the coverage there is nowhere near enough to create an encyclopedic article. Two more sources (In These Times, Wisconsin Citizens Media Cooperative.) are independent but appear unreliable. On top of that the subject's website appears to be defunct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, for which this is a project. If this were prodded, I would have done it myself. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, my !vote changed to Redirect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 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 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Bearian, as subject is a defunct publication of a notable organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Cafesin[edit]

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

Despite one novel in the Number 1 sales slot for a subgenre on Amazon for one month, I don't find that this person meets the notability criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BIO, in particular WP:AUTHOR. The article's creator removed a PROD tag, stating that the novel "introduc[es] material never before written in literary fiction. This is noted over and over again in the reviews". But I don't see these reviews. The article claims two firsts, one being that one novel has the first explicit depiction of the sexual assault of a man in an "American literary genre novel" (and what is a "literary genre" novel? as opposed to a genre-less novel?), which seems false or, at least, unverifiable, and the other being that another novel is the first to give a first-person perspective of a person surrounding the time of the Rodney King incident, which doesn't strike me as groundbreaking. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there was "Also exclusive to this novel is the use of both third and first person in present tense throughout the work, noted by reviewers as a unique and original writing technique." No indication is given of which reviewers these are, but they are wrong about mixing persons. See In a Strange Room by Damon Galgut, Of Beasts and Beings by Ian Holding, as well as several online discussions on the subject, [32] and [33], and Narrative mode#Alternating person. I'd have to go back to the ones I've read to see if they were in the present tense or not, but to get as restrictive as "mixing persons in the present tense" seems like another instance of going to greath lengths to define the field narrowly enough to conclude that it has no other members. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd call this one WP:TOOSOON. The author has written 3 books, one of which was the top of the Amazon "free books" list at one moment in time. (It's a bit of a stretch to call that a "bestseller" - it wasn't being sold.) I can find no non-fan-blog resources about the author or the books. This author may be off to a good start, but an actual "seller" bestseller seems to be as yet un-achieved, and the literary world (writ large) has not yet weighed in. Let's give it some time. LaMona (talk) 01:13, 27 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 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Called a 'novel memoir,'[by whom?]. If you read the next line, it defines this--"The author coined the phrase..." The article does not say "American literary fiction novel" as indicated. It says: "American literary genre novel," which is a specific genre--Literary Fiction, as it does not fall under any other genre heading. Suggestion of "genre-less" is incorrect, as today's fiction is referred to by genre. Additionally, noted by many reviewers as "a unique," and "no fluff" read, Reverb's original prose style--void of most articles and pronouns, was written to read like a string of texts for today's reader, according to the author. Disconnected offers a completely new perspective on a major recent historical event, an intimate view of the poverty of the illegal Latino population just 22 yrs ago in Los Angeles, and though may not be groundbreaking to you, readers get a view not seen before, chronicling the disparity between the White, Latino and Black populations not present heretofore in fiction. The author has received several very favorable nods from notable book blogs, such as Night Owl Reviews: http://www.nightowlreviews.com/V5/Reviews/Diana-Coyle-reviews-Reverb-by-J-Cafesin, and The Book Wheel: http://www.thebookwheelblog.com/reverb-j-cafesin/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjfera (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Literary genre novel" is nonsense. A literary genre is a type of literature: romance, historical, detective, political, etc. "Literary genre novel" is like "Canine breed dog". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we'd see much more prominent reviews if this were notable. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Author has not received WP:Significant coverage outside of her own website. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kill Your Idols. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Gimmicks Needed[edit]

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

Unsourced and seems NN. Am I wrong? Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 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 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - unsourced, and I couldn't find anything that would allow that to change. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To Kill Your Idols. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible suggestion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and close says the nominator. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:43, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modhumaloti Dake Aay[edit]

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

I see plenty more youtube links, but I don't see any WP:RS. Perhaps they aren't in English, so I'm open to withdraw if someone can find a pair, but I found nothing. Dennis 2¢ 22:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Userfy I can find no reliable sources, but given the age of the movie and that the song is from a Bengali film, this is perhaps not surprising. I have a hunch that it is notable, but hunch is isn't a reliable source. The editor is new, so I suggest moving it to user space with a note that this has been done and that if he or she reliably sources it, then they are welcome to move it back into article space. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I said below that perhaps the user should be contacted, but after looking through their history, I see that a large number of problematic articles have been created without a response other than to delete the talk page notification. Therefore, because there are no reliable sources establishing notability, the article should be deleted. I am One of Many (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really can't ask for it to be userfied to someone's space unless they have asked for the same. You can ask for it to be userfied into YOUR space, but you can't speak on their behalf. Dennis - 2¢ 14:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since, they are a new user, they may not understand what is going on. I'll drop them a note explaining the situation and that they have this option. Sometimes I will request userfying an article into my space if I think I might be able to establish notability at a future date, I won't be able to with this one. If I get no response, I'll see no other option but to change to delete. I am One of Many (talk) 18:25, 30 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, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits in the major databases (LexisNexis, ProQuest, Google Books/Scholar), with and without the space in Modhu Maloti. Possible that there are offline or non-English sources, and please ping me if you find them. Until then, there are no worthwhile redirection targets (the one artist's page doesn't mention the song), and deletion is the best option. czar ♔ 01:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onetius[edit]

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

Advertisement for a company that appears to fail WP:NCORP, created and edited by COI editors and IP SPAs. Its sources are Youtube and what appear to be non-inpendendent sources (press releases and re-reported press releases; someone with a better knowledge of Croatian might be able to weigh in here). Google returns just 2000 hits on the name, including a ton of false positives. Kolbasz (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 18:56, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaraguan immigration to Mexico[edit]

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

Not notable. Maybe could redirect NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems to be a mistake, does not address topic in title. This could be a notable topic, but this article is not helpful. Borock (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – More a Wiktionary term than an article. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced one line article. Almost a speedy. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:A1, WP:A3 - Firstly the text does not match the content.The title is "Nicaraguan immigration to Mexico", yet there is nothing about immigration in the text. Reading the text gives insufficient context to identify the subject of this article. Moreover, there is no content. The text starts with a topic, which should be the title, but isn't, and the only content is rephrasing that topic. There is no actual content. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1. Obviously - says nothing about the topic, and not much at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Pick a number, any number. Shit like this should not be here clogging up AfD. Carrite (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. To the extent this article's about anything, it's not what the title says it's supposed to be about. It doesn't seem like content worth keeping even if the title were changed to reflect the sentence in the article, because there's no assertion of why the subject is important. (A7) Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gourl[edit]

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

Not notable NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google News https://www.google.com/search?q=Gourl&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws - return news about that website gourl.io which describe in article Andy29932 ^Talk 01:52, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret (Justin Timberlake song)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NSONGS. There are no reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage of the song independent of album reviews. Should be redirected to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 as it is a plausible search term, but does not warrant a separate article and thus is a WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are song's articles which have much smaller length than this one, there are so many sources mentioning and reviewing the song it's more than obvious that there is a stability for the article. Additionally, he performed the song on his tour for 100+ dates and the song charted in the US and South Korea, more than enough to establish the stability of the article. Please don't be ridiculous. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Well written – well referenced article. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Charting is not an automatic indicator of notability, and neither are live performances. WP:NSONGS states that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Outside of album reviews, it only gets brief mentions. Article length isn't the concern here, and WP:WAX isn't a very convincing argument in deletion discussions as one cannot solely determine the notability of one subject based on the notability of another. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am sure we have like 100+ articles like this one (including ones from your fav Perry) why don't you AfD them all? Or you was too busy stalking me until the time I finished and GANed the article and the same second you AfDit. The reasons you are giving here are totally non-sense. I am ending the discussion with you here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would remind all editors to please assume good faith of each other. There are many articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted: their existence is not a reason to delete, or not delete, this article. This article must be judged on its own merits. If, Tomica, there are other articles you feel do not meet notability criteria, by Perry or anyone else, you are, of course, free to propose their deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not an "article deleter" sorry, it's just not my thing. And the good faith is here, I only don't appreciate bad faith like above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, if you yourself don't believe that it should be deleted, why would you nominate it for deletion? It would be much more effective to start a merge discussion, instead of taking the article straight to deletion. I would like the nominator to please review what exactly a WP:CFORK is, because this is not one. This article contains a large amount of information that is not in the article of the parent album. There is coverage on the song in regards to the album, as well as the tour. You can debate whether or not the South Korean chart is relevant, but charting at #18 on the US R&B Songs is a pretty notable feat. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The article clearly has enough information to warrant a stand-alone article, and has grown well beyond a stub. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Status and Tomica. The article is reasonably detailed and, additionally, the fact that the song has charted makes me lean towards "notable" here. — Mayast (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It just barely meets notability requirements (a lot of reviews are within album reviews--although are couple aren't--and it ranked #50 on the charts, unimpressive), but I'm leaning towards keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If Wictionary needs this, can always be userfied.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic rock[edit]

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

Could not find notable mentions in reliable source. Seems to fail WP:GNG. However, editors interested in music may have access to other reliable sources. So, nominating for AfD for broader community consensus. Dwaipayan (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move - to Wiktionary – found a few references but better severed as a definition. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this is an established term for a definable music type. Even the quote in the article uses only the first word. Borock (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Borock and complete lack of sourcing. As to the quote you could substitute almost any form of music at the start of it to try an illustrate a specific genre. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a term that is used (with minor frequency) but doesn't seem to be an actual genre of music, just a term people continually reinvent or borrow for airy sounding music in movies. The current article is pure original research and written in an un-encyclopedic tone.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wander Over Yonder (season 1)[edit]

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

Only one season in List of Wander Over Yonder episodes. Nothing in this article that is not already in the main article Wander Over Yonder and in List of Wander Over Yonder episodes. Redirect was undone. Also unattributed copies from source articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems premature to break off into individual articles when we don't even have a second season down yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Premature split that doesn't add anything as the content is all available elsewhere. The split wasn't carried out correctly and resulted in an article that needs to bring it up to a reasonable standard. If there is a need to create a season article in the future, it's best to start this one from scratch so there is no benefit in keeping the edit history by redirecting. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many times does it need to be said; if a show has only one existing season, it doesn't need season-by-season articles. Fine in the regular article. Nate • (chatter) 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a second season was announced back in June. -- EvilLair (✉ | c) 01:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And no production details yet, making a S2 article beyond early to create. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First Season rationale. Becky Sayles (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, at least until the second season starts. It still seems plausible that people might search for the title, so it doesn't make sense to totally delete it, but I agree that there doesn't need to be a separate article for the season yet. Alphius (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted first to get rid of the unattributed copies from other articles that are in the edit history, then the original redirect restored. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that's true. Alphius (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Once there's a second season we can re-create this article if the main List of Wander Over Yonder episodes article becomes too unwieldy. Note the word if. Luthien22 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Retread of main and episode list articles. Nothing substantial nor significant to separate this from anything series-related. — Wylie pedia 04:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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