Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 October	6 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 speedy delete under G11 by Jimfbleak.(Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackett Janeiro[edit]

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

I can't tell if this is a hoax or what. The website does not exist-it starts as a fictional character then as a living person??? Wgolf (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-On a really odd note-on the new page feed it says: Created by Edwardlucas (talk | contribs) · 161 edits since 17 September 2014-article was created on September 16th! Yep somehow he registered AFTER this article was created? Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Must be a New Pages Feed glitch because Edwardlucas has been editing since 2006: [1] Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must be-that is odd either way. Wgolf (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edward Lucas here. Blackett is a fictional character who will feature in my book on cybersecurity which is out next year. I have created his wikipedia page to illustrate the way in which reputation can be created and destroyed. I would be grateful if it were not deleted though I realise that this is a rather unusual case.... ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardlucas (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slamdunk Delete: A fictional character from an unpublished book? Certainly by now the editor has to have understood that subjects have to demonstrate notability per WP:N as a prerequisite for an article, and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sociology experiment. The book wouldn't be notable yet, never mind a character within it. Nha Trang 20:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a speedy delete - this looks like a sociology experiment. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can understand that -- I am sorry if I have breached Wikipedia rules. If you google him, he still exists! regards Edwardlucas (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete as db-promo for upcoming book. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, will be userfied if requested--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eon Films India[edit]

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

advertising, overstating importance The Banner talk 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Eon Films Mohan Das Amrita Dutta Mahua Mazumdar

Delete for failing WP:COMPANY. The company exists and they've produced and distributed a few films, but those film's notability while verifable is not inherited, and in their own lacking of in-depth coverage in reliable sources the company does not meet notability standards. Perfectly fine if this new article be returned to its author for a complete rework after he's been sent to WP:MOS and WP:RS, studies WP:CORP, and shows understanding of WP:ADVERT and WP:PEACOCK. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could certainly agree with a "move back to user space"-proposal. The Banner talk 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY and is promo. Maybe even speedy delete db-promo. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jersey92, a speedy is a bit harsh, specially as tone could otherwise be addressed through editing... and many of the contributions from India suffer from the same flowery use of language as do their news articles. The issue is really as simple as not (yet) meeting WP:CORP, and if or when notability can be established a return of a properly sourced and neutrally worded article should not have the extra burden of being itself speedied as a recreation of something that had been speedied. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt That's why I stuck with "maybe"... either way it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted --Jersey92 (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should go for now as well, but a far better version could one day return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Thunder Bay Chill season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NSEASONS because it's not a fully professional season. This article is filled with empty templates. Kingjeff (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the following articles are very incomplate. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. These articles also fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Fails WP:GNG WP:NSEASONS etc. per above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Toronto Lynx season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS, WP:GNG, and WP:SOURCES. Kingjeff (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NSEASONS, WP:GNG, and WP:SOURCES.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2013 River City Rovers season (I'm voting only on an article that I watch) - Reason: There's no article there to speak of, and no references, so it naturally fails WP:GNG. There's no need to even consider another guideline. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Category:River City Rovers seasons needs to be deleted along with it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Fails WP:GNG WP:NSEASONS etc. per above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - every club I checked meets WP:GNG. Perhaps these should be done individually. See [2], [3], [4], [5] Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third source has nothing to do with any club season article. Kingjeff (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are surely significant media coverage of things that are part of the Lynx's season, and should be mentioned in the season's article. It's clear that these teams in mid-size cities are getting significant regional media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third source has no bearing on the Toronto Lynx's 2013 season. They would be used in the main Toronto Lynx article. I hardly say that one regional newspaper for each team is good enough to establish notability. You are assuming that if one team from a mid–size market has a media outlet covering the team, then all will. If this is true, then prove it and show where we can find sources for these articles. Kingjeff (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan Jr.[edit]

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

The sources provided do not really show us much about his notability but tell us of his notable relatives. Therefore I think he is not a notable artist for a couple of appearances. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —innotata 23:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 23:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —innotata 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —innotata 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant media coverage, decently sourced and meets WP:GNG. Gloss • talk 18:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's got coverage apart from his family and is a reality tv personality. --Kbabej (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of WP:RS showing notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Piegza[edit]

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

I'm not finding any significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP. Don't believe the subject meets GNG or CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 21:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a translation of the article from fr.wiki, which also does not include references. LaMona (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable per WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karis McLarty[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer and musician, relying almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources with extremely little evidence of real media coverage which properly verifies that she would pass either WP:MUSICIAN or WP:LAWYER. Only two citations in the entire article, in fact, are to a source that would pass muster, and even those two are (1) a passing mention of her name in a "hottest downloads of the day" column and (2) a "what are you wearing?" fashion blurb — so even those fail to constitute substantive coverage. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can create a good and properly sourced article about her, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When this article was nominated, WP:LAWYER redirected to Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Lawyers, a recently written draft proposal. The target of that redirect has since been changed. WP:LAWYERS is unaffected. As the author of that draft proposal, I think that I should say that it isn't intended to be completely exhaustive. James500 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some more references to establish the notability of the subject. The sources it contains are enough for keeping the article. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You added even more primary and unreliable sources — blogs and YouTube videos mostly, with the added bonus of a circular reference (#3) to a site that asserts Wikipedia as its reference (I hope I don't have to point out why that's not acceptable) — and failed to add even one new source that actually passes the reliable sourcing test. Bearcat (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These secondary sources provide enough significance to the subject. link, link, link, Link, link, link - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Those are still all non-notable blogs and PR profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly associated with, and still don't pass our reliable sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - A pretty exhaustive look found no more citations that support notability. Remember - a delete today is not necessarily permanent, often it's a "not yet". But Wikipedia articles are not to be used to create notability but as information on subjects that are already notable. EBY (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's an avalanche of sources in the article, but look at them carefully (or at all, really), and they don't measure up. There are casual mentions, and blog posts, and quotes from the subject, but nothing by way of articles from substantive reliable sources discussing the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. This still fails WP:BIO. Nha Trang 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1994–1996[edit]

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

This subject is a "best of" comilation album of songs by the Estonian rock band Smilers. Unfortunately, the album itself does not pass WP:NALBUMS (or GNG), which requires that there be independent reliable sources that discuss the album in reasonable detail. I have checked the usual sources and have not been able to locate any. The band is certainly notable, and many of the individual songs on the album may be notable, but it does not look as if the album itself is notable. An alternative to deletion would include a merger into the Smilers article. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google Book check immediately showed that the period 1994-1996 for Smilers is covered in Enno Tammer 10 aastat uut Eesti Tänapäev, 2001 "Üheksakümnendate lõpus nautis suurimat tähelepanu Smilers, hinnatud kontsertartistid ... 1994.-1996. aastal algas Tallinnas aga tõeline ööklubide buum, avati Piraat (Pirital TOP-i hoones, eriti populaarne teismeliste hulgas), Hollywood ...". No reason to assume the period being notable in the band's career the album wasn't covered in other reliable Estonian music press sources which we don't have access to. Further compilation albums generally provide a useful service among album articles on en.wp. For bands which we don't document every single album (i.e. prior to 2005, or European/Asian/Latin bands) compilations sum up the bands' more notable activity. I am also not clear User:Blueboar why you have selected an Estonian album for AFD rather than the many British and American albums with less notability and sourcing than this one? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't about whether the Smilers are notable, but whether the album itself is notable, per WP:NALBUMS. A passing reference to the album, in a source that is primarily about the band does not establish notability of the album. What is needed are sources (an yes non-english sources will do) that talk in some depth about the album itself. I looked, but I could not find anything, but if someone else can, that would be wonderful. We should never assume sources exist... we need to know sources exist (and preferably use them in the article).

As to why I "chose" this album... I didn't, it chose me. I don't normally work on music related articles. I came across this one due to the RM about its title. When I realized that it did not have proper sourcing, and could not find sources to fix the problem... I decided to send it to AfD. As for the fact that there may be other articles that are in worse shape... well, "Other stuff shouldn't exist" is just as poor an argument as "Other stuff exists". Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The album seems to fail WP:GNG. Articles about albums (and songs, and bands) that really have no clear indication of distinct notability should just be deleted (or merged into other articles, such as an article about the band in this case). One or two sources isn't really enough, and a passing mention really isn't enough. If we won't be able to produce and maintain a substantial high-quality article about a topic, we just shouldn't have a separate article about it. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article is only three sentences long (plus a list of the song titles on the album). It doesn't provide any in-depth information about the album – it only says who the band was that produced it and says that the album is a collection of songs that had been previously released in Finland. There is no critique of the music, no mention of historical significance, no mention of chart performance, and no indication that anyone ever wrote any real commentary about the album. The body of the article is shorter than this comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The album just hasn't proven to be notable. Period. Done deal. We can safely ignore In ictu oculi's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, although if he thinks there are plenty of British and American album articles that ought to be AfDed ... what's stopping him? Nha Trang 20:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View in Latin America[edit]

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

Content fork of Timeline of Google Street View. The Banner talk 18:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The previous attempt at deletion indicated the sources establish notability. A clear Keep So what has changed? Banner doesn't like it. That's not a reason to delete. Looking at the main article, this presents more concise and focused information about the subject, which is exactly what different articles should do. There is no reason to delete valid content. Trackinfo (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of going on with following me around and throwing personal attacks, you could have tried to do your homework. In that case, you should have seen that the content of this article is 100% included in Timeline of Google Street View. But okay, doing negative and assuming bad faith is off course far easier than checking the nomination reasons. The Banner talk 00:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase was "this presents more concise and focused information about the subject." The information might be contained on another page, but it is mixed with a mass of information that is not in the way on this article. If this were a transcluded page, would the individual information in the article be any less valuable? Of course not. Trackinfo (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has more than just what is included in Timeline of Google Street View. It has paragraphs on the background of each country's views. Most of it is properly sourced, and the little info that is lacking sources can be sourced. It has grown since the last Afd, thereby nullifying the points made there. And it is placed in an organized fashion making it easier to understand for a reader concentrated in reading about this region. Sebwite (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest that it perhaps a better idea to improve Timeline of Google Street View and this article in such a way that Timeline of Google Street View point to this article, as kind of split off article? The Banner talk 20:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid spin-off article, not a fork. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain Wushu Championships[edit]

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

Notability not supported by references. Local event with little impact. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Event with no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. There's nothing to show this meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria since there appear to be no independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Sound[edit]

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

Delete for failure to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The article was created on 17 June 2006 by Mag66 a single-purpose account that only created and edited the two articles on Nigel Sixsmith and his studio/firm The Art Of Sound. No basis for notability is provided, and none has been found. Not to be confused with the Japanese drumming project; the Art of Sound music festival in Cleveland County, North Carolina; the DJ services company in Berks County, Pennsylvania; the audio installation company in Southern California; or any of the others that use this name. --Bejnar (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 09:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 09:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without any references to establish notability article needs to go, especially having been in existence for so long.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of vice chancellors in Nigeria[edit]

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

I do not see the point of this article. (per WP:SALAT) The first University in Nigeria (UI) was founded in 1948. There are currently more than 150 universities in Nigeria. Since 1948 till 2014 there have been at least 1000 vice-chancellors in Nigeria. Wikipedia is not a directory for articles with irrelevant information. There is already an article for List of universities in Nigeria, I suggest we create a column for the current vice-chancellor on that page. If I need to know the past VC of a university then that information should be in a section of the university's wiki article and not on this page. I also searched for similar articles for other countries but found none. My fear is that this article will definitely become too large and clumsy. If the former VCs of UI (for example) are notable then the article List of University of Ibadan vice chancellors can be created but not grouping all schools together. The "Category:Vice chancellors in Nigeria" can be created as a substitute for this article. I will appreciate other opinions. Darreg (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: per WP:STANDALONE. Article obviously meet WP:CSC and every entry in the list also meet WP:GNG. In addition, List of universities in Nigeria and List of vice chancellors in Nigeria are two different articles, each with its basic and unique informations. The fact that the nominator searched for similar article with no result of such article for other countries (based on his claim above) here on wikipedia is not an indication and implication that such cannot occur here. That is his own assumption and not a Wikipedia policy. I guess the nominator is comparing the above article with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pay-TV Company in Nigeria, a Just-concluded discussion that he participated. ~~going on for one of his recently created article~~. Finally, let me mention here that we have an article on List of biochemists and on Biochemist. Despite the fact that there are thousands of notable biochemist, we cannot delete Lists of Biochemists and create a section for list of biochemist under Biochemist. Perhaps the nominator of the above article will also suggest the deletion of List of Biochemist with creation of a section for list of Biochemist under Biochemist. Wikicology (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the creator of the article. I only commented on the Afd then added a few references/additions to it. You really need to be careful with the claims you make on Wikipedia. And even if I created it, it has nothing to do with this Afd since they are totally different kind of lists. Kindly stick to this discussion and avoid derailing, especially when it does not add any reasonable substance to this case. Darreg (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An alphabetical list of this sort is potentially very useful;it has the advantage over a category that it can give names and universities. Consistent practice is that we keep both unless there's some special reason. The only thing wrong with this one is that it needs adding to. (There might also be a point of making it sortable) Certain, after a period of time, we might possibly want to divide it in some manner, possibly by century. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per DGG; This article is a very useful and relevant one. If it gets to bulky, it can be split into centuries or decades. And "List of vice chancellors" for Nigerian universities can also be created (as the nominator suggested) as "spin off articles" for those universities without the need to delete this article.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG explained it well above. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Pedro[edit]

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

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

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

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

No sign of nor claim of WP:NOTABILITY for this character from web films. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Paco Pedro Wikipedia page should not be deleted as it has 3 pages on the IMDB website. IMDB requires all films to be notable before being included on their site. It would seem that 'notability' has already been established. Note: this is a message that was posted on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Paco_Pedro by 81.155.47.55 (talk · contribs), apparently intended for this discussion. I have transferred it here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listings at IMDb does not establish notability in the eyes of Wikipedia. Per [[WP:NFILMS|our guidelines on film notability: To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database."--- The film is included in the Internet Movie Database film guide. Character page/bio: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0451817/bio Film guide for FIRST movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3813006/ Film guide for SECOND movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3826656/ Photos for these three guides will be uploaded very soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.47.55 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what I quoted says that IMDb is insufficient to establish notability. It's not good enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - I looked into this character and he has two films which have been approved on the Internet Movie Database website, and a third one which has just been completed, with a professional cast and crew. Any addition to the Internet Movie Database as far as I'm aware requires submissions to be not only 'notable', but they have strict guidelines on this. Paco Pedro also has getting on for 3,000 views on youtube, and a growing cult fan base. It took me five minutes to find this out, it wasn't hard work! I have just joined the many other fans of Paco Pedro so don't try and tell me he is not notable. There is no way Paco Pedro should be deleted! Dean Winter <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3813006/?ref_=fn_al_ch_1a http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3826656/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJik-Rz_yzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGgypMeoM0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.149.217 (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — 90.205.149.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~keep~~ Paco Pedro has a growing fan base - see fan club on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pacopedrobullfighter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.47.55 (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — 81.155.47.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Dude, even if we did count Facebook pages as supporting notability -- we don't -- you created that page. There's a guideline called WP:COI you should read. Nha Trang 17:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb has much lower requirements for inclusion, basically anyone who's worked in films, e.g. this piano player who subbed for Dooley Wilson in Casablanca ("Play it again, Elliot?"). Facebook doesn't do it either. No substantial media coverage as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Fire: Great, so this fictional character has fanboys. Well, good for them. He meets IMDB's criteria? Awesome, he can have a page there. He meets with YouTube's approval? Great, he can have videos there. On Wikipedia, he needs to meet Wikipedia's rules for notability. He doesn't. Done deal. (By the bye, the article was created by a now-blocked SPA.) Nha Trang 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ I am delighted to announce that a York based newspaper (http://www.yorkpress.co.uk)have recently decided to write an article on Paco Pedro 3- owing to the fact that the third film was shot in York, features many historic Yorkshire sites, York actors, and a leading York photographer. Perhaps this now meets with the "media coverage" that was requested earlier in this debate. Mark Wilson Smith (Director of Paco Pedro 3)— 81.155.47.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, the possibility that some time in the future a local paper may publish an article (there is no sign of one of the website) that says who-knows-what about the making of a film does not mean that the character that is the subject of this article is notable. You should not be creating WP:PROMO pages about your own projects in the first place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JOHN BREWER: I actually found out that they are getting a book published next year about this character. Add that to their newspaper article and whatever else they have said. So I would probably say just keep it in for now.

Oh, wow, another supposed piece of not-yet-existent coverage. Again, not something that establishes notability under Wikipedia guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So who's "John Brewer" and what does he have to do with anything, unless our vandalizing SPA friend 81.155.47.5 claims that's his real name? Nha Trang 19:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philby Greenstreet[edit]

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

Although it has not been made clear in the article, the subject is merely a fictional character in a book by A.W. Hill a.k.a. Andy Hill (Music Supervisor) (see here). The references added by the creator of the above articles, Ghostrider51, do not support the material he added. The character, the book, and the author/music supervisor all appear to fail the relevant notability guidelines due to lack of coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Location (talk) 21:04, 20 September 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 September 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fictitious or not there is no significant coverage, so it fails the general notability guidelines. The name appears to have been made up from that of the British spy Kim Philby and that of the actor Sydney Greenstreet who was so memorable as the villain in such films as The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Across the Pacific and Background to Danger. The article reads as if its author lives in a universe where fiction becomes reality. I did not comment on A.W. Hill or Andy Hill (Music Supervisor) as those articles were not marked for Afd discussion. I suspect that they should be considered at some point. --Bejnar (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaai Raja Kaai[edit]

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

Someone put a prod on this last month but the user deleted it-but its a too soon film. Wgolf (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Kaai Raja Kaai

Delete for now per being TOO SOON. It may have filmed but in being so-far unreleased and lacking coverage, we have a failure of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion or recreation when released and getting coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it is interesting, it will get created again. No harm in deleting now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnation Increment in CPSEs[edit]

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

I don't see what criteria of inclusion this meets. It is a bunch of facts regarding pay level for public enterprises in India, but that isn't exactly encyclopedic by itself. Dennis 2¢ 18:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources, so the subject seems to fail notability per WP:GNG. Without reliable secondary sources discussing history, controversies, cultural impact, etc., of these pay level rules, we cannot build a neutral, informative article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a trivial list of trivial pay raises that uses trivial primary sources. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG, and fails every criterion of WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NBOOK. —LucasThoms 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

goodreads is a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.30.61 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article itself admits that the readership "mostly consists of the writers themselves". Thus, it's not notable. Alexius08 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An interesting concept for a project, but this fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with kudos to Skr15081997 for improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha[edit]

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

Unable to find notability-of course its a bit hard when the person is hard to search for when they have no last name listed also. Wgolf (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A glance at the history suggests the full name here is Preetha Raghav. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, and searching using this filter there are more sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:GNG. She has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I have improved and added reliable sources to this biography. It seems like WP:BEFORE was not followed here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the addition of new sources by Skr15081997, it meets WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unik (producer)[edit]

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

Music producer with very little about him and seems to be much too soon Wgolf (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Interesting enough, the creator of the page has the same name as one of his musicians he apparently produces for. Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Link to album show one half-producer credit on one bonus track, hardly enough to establish notability. The list of artists in the article is unreferenced. Article can be recreated if he goes on to do more notable work.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♔ 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anuario Filosófico[edit]

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

Article based on primary sources of a non-notable review. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that is produced by Thomson Reuters, like the Social Sciences Citation Index, which is listed under WP:NJOURNALS criterion 1. I'm not completely sure though, so, @Randykitty:, could I ask what your opinion is as to whether the databases listed at this link satisty WP:NJOURNALS? Jinkinson talk to me 20:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sjeez, what a bad article. I have cleaned it up and removed unsourced/promotional stuff. However, Jinkinson is absolutely right: being abstracted and indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index fully satisfies NJOURNALS. So does listing in Scopus. I have added references for this to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the edits of Randykitty now the article is a new one. Therefore I withdraw the nomination. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay World 2011[edit]

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

No secondary sources. It is not notable independently from the Mr Gay World organization. No need for articles of annual contest. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per the sources provided by Cirt - In principle I really want to support coverage for alternative beauty pageants due to the institutionalised heteronormative sexism that means we get media attention for pretty girls in bikinis (and not always even then) But yes, there is very little here that isn't already covered in the parent article, plus a lack of reliable sourcing. Mabalu (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (for Mabalu) - Mabalu, I have a feeling like you need to justify you're not a homophobe; neither am I. Some users try to press us so that we will keep away from proposing deletion of their favourite articles or articles in their favourite areas. Never mind. If I have proposed the deletion of several articles on Turks I did not do it because I am anti-Turk or anything similar but certainly because the articles did not look notable or appropriate for WP. That is all. Just vote without worrying about those attitudes. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm gay. Mabalu (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Not me. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source coverage found at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make the searches that way: Add '2011' and '-wiki' to 'your title', search; then tell us if you have found any 'reliable' source. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: National Public Radio, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, Radio Netherlands Worldwide Africa, Mamba Online, The Guardian, India Times, are a few that gave it source coverage in 2012 alone. — Cirt (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about coverage for 2011? Mabalu (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage of the year 2011: South Africa Info, Time Live, Time Out Beijing, DNA Made That Way, Phillipine Daily Inquirer, Seattle Gay News, and Mamba Online. — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu:, hopefully this additional comment is helpful to you. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - always useful to have them pointed out! Mabalu (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing cited by Cirt. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Bouchelaghem[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Notability is not inherited. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His record shows 1 top tier fight (with PRIDE), but he still fails to meet WP:MMANOT. The only links are to his fight record so he also fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG. Lacks top tier fights and significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McDaniel[edit]

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

Not notable. The article was discussed in March with a decision to delete and has since been recreated. The discussion concluded that the subject was not notable and that the sources were not reliable. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to easily fail WP:GNG. Re-creating an article if there is new material should be fine. This doesn't seem to have it. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and G4 is applicable as it has been deleted in a deletion discussion in April 2014.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Weiner[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - no title fights - lots of maybes and almosts. Reporting boils down to basic fight reports and passing mention. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show he meets WP:NBOX or WP:GNG--just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asoke Cat[edit]

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

Trivial meme. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references include multiple independent sources. It satisfies WP:GNG and this is probably not the place to argue in general about meme guidelines. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No length of coverage - it was a meme for a month and disappeared, independent sources be damned there was no lengthy coverage or impact to establish notability. --TKK! bark with me! 15:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- May to November 2013 (date of references in the aticle) seems to span more than "a month". --101.108.104.139 (talk) 05:11, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May not meet Wikipedia:Notability. --Love Krittaya (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't even commit to "does not," that's not a very compelling case for deleting. What about the several news sources already listed in the article's references? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a news item enjoying brief coverage. Yes, it's a cute cat, and is fine for Facebook -- but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Klever[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought he would pass WP:MMANOT, but it turns out he has only 1 fight that counts as top tier and a total of only 7 fights. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with just one top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salome Khomeriki[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Miss World is not the same as Miss Universe, and there is not yet consensus that she'd automatically be notable. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nominator is making a wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. I've had to explain to the Nom the meaning of WP:Before and the meaning of bad faith. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you stop the personal attack? The Banner talk 21:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Trackinfo. Sources here and here and here and here and here and when will an administrator block Banner from rapid-fire AfDing articles without doing the WP:BEFORE steps?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And when do you stop with personal attacks, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and start something basic as WP:AGF? Ow, and all your "sources" are related websites or unsuitable videoclips. The Banner talk 17:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Nicaragua relations[edit]

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

Delete Due to lack of any significant recent relations. a mere stub CaribDigita (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article is sourced, includes several examples of bilateral relations between the countries and is as notable as corresponding articles on relations between two countries. The argument given for deletion, "lack of recent relations" is not a valid argument for deletion.Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relations between the countries seem to be both recent and significant. Andrew (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep That an article is a stub and has not been updated recently are not satisfactory reasons for deletion.--TM 02:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep no argument presented how a notability guideline is not met. Finland has provided significant assistance to Nicaragua as shown through the coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a now a much improved article. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being "merely a stub" is not a valid reason to delete an article. --do ncr am 23:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VEVO Lift: Bridgit Mendler[edit]

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

Has no notability except for videos being released to Vevo, which does not exactly scream third party representation in media. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly inadequate sourcing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relies on only one source for content. IPadPerson (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7, author blanked Jac16888 ^Talk 18:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Romo[edit]

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

This biography of a living person was created with no references and BLP-PRODded; the creator removed the prod and added three references, of which the only one that mentions him is a page about his selection as Mister Gay Chile. This is also the only ~~place~~context in which I can find mention of him online, few or none of the sites qualify as reliable sources, and he did not place or win any awards at Mr Gay World 2012. Thus he does not appear to be notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that source shows he had a one-time event fame in his country, not notability to enter WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Jamshaid Azam[edit]

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

Journalist with evidence of existence but no references about him rather than by him. Google searches find nothing significant using either the name in English or Urdu. Claims to awards that appear nowhere but his facebook page and here. Unsourced claims to being drama writer, model, actor, poet as well as journalist. noq (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - He began writing only last March. Too soon to have an article here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without his own social networking sites, the article wouldn't even have references, and Facebook and Twitter are not appropriate references to begin with. Also, Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory, and other than some non-notable and unsourced info, that's what the article appears to be - a directory for listing and linking the subjects articles. There is also nothing that shows that the columns are "famous", that sounds like pov to me. Remove the directory of links and there would be very little left. Cmr08 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and above and not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Muniji[edit]

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

I put a prod up but then looking over this-this might be more of a AFD, the "refs" are not existent and it is complete original research. (Possibly sock puppets as well) Wgolf (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-More problems: User:Brahmcharini shivaniji/sandbox. That is a different account then the one who created this page. Wgolf (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete It is a Copyright Violation. I applied the Speedy Tag. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haringey Box Cup[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Notability not established. Does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a List spawned from the main article.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Haringey Box Cup has been around for six years now, but that appears to be an insufficient time for it to have had a significant impact on amateur boxing, at least as reported in secondary sources. Hence, I believe that it is WP:TOOSOON for an article in the Wikipedia. I found only a single passing mention in GoogleBooks where a James Cook had won a silver metal in the Haringey Box Cup. Otherwise in electronic sources I found only non-reliable sources, passing mention or purely local coverage such as here and here. --Bejnar (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Unsourced articles about a local amateur boxing tournament. Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Notability not established, very recent (2008) amateur competition. Just a community thing. Szzuk (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Fails WP:NBOX and WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Xia[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable subjects of the subject of this BLP. This is a Chinese volleyball player who, according to the link on the page only played on the national juniors team. Do not believe the page meets GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Walker[edit]

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

This footballer was verifiably part of the then Melbourne Heart's youth squad, but has yet to play a match in a fully professional league. Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:27, 5 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) 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:48, 6 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) 17:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is about to start playing in the National Premier League, Australia's second division. Semi-professional league player like many articles on wikipedia. Still young, plenty of talent, will play proefessionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HR shuffnstuff (talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 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. Keep comment above ignores obvious WP:CRYSTAL issues and fundamentally misunderstands NFOOTY. Being a professional player does not make an individual notable, playing in a FULLY professional league does. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govana Libre[edit]

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

Obscure cocktail variant which is implied to be found in only one Glasgow hotel. No reliable sources. Only link is to a recipe for the well known Cuba Libre. Cocktail apparently invented by a non-notable individual whose own article has just been deleted for a second time; both articles created by the same user. Jellyman (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of food and drink-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. This is a relatively new drink for which there is no evidence of notability. It barely gets any mention, much less in significant sources. --Larry (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redeeming value, no coverage, should be no article. The drink is not mentioned by the Crowne Plaza Hotel, the City of Glasgow, or the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. It is also doubtful that a Glasgow "iconic cocktail" would be made with rum, Drambuie maybe. And then there is the Rob Roy, but who would do that to good scotch? Auld Nick and the Flying Scotsman are other possibilities. The sentence in the Govan article about this alleged Scottish cocktail also needs to be stricken. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the analyses above. The article was apparently created at the same time the cocktail was invented. It was not notable then and there is no evidence that it has become notable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mpalanga[edit]

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

Non-notable ward that fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." - Takeaway (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognised country sub-division. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I am One of Many (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The First Book of Napoleon[edit]

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

No indication of notability is given and the book doesn't appear to meet any of the five criteria listed at WP:BKCRIT. FyzixFighter (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Recently reprinted (NBOOKS suggests this is an indicator of notability for non-contemporary books). James500 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions. First, how does this satisfy GNG? GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources", which I am currently not seeing. All I see are a few trivial mentions, so where is the "significant coverage"? Second, WP:NBOOKS lists being recently reprinted as one of four condition when considering non-contemporary books, the other three being whether the book has been widely cited or written about, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature. Is satisfying only one of these sufficient, or are we to consider all four in conjunction (as suggested IMO by the "and" in the list instead of an "or") when applying NBOOKS? I ask because I don't see any indication that it meets those other three conditions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any hard and fast criteria, the page suggests a "more common sense approach". —innotata 15:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by that common sense approach, this book has not enjoyed "fame" or a "place in the history of literature". That a company runs copies of this public domain text (as it does to many other non-notable texts) is not an indicator of notability. czar ♔ 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that if there is coverage extending over hundreds of years, such as the periodical from 1908 and the various bibliographies in GBooks, it clearly has enjoyed fame and a place in the history of literature. If there were only contemporary sources you might have a point, but when something is still getting coverage 99 years later, you can infer that it has become part of history (and not just yesterday's news). James500 (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites multiple in-depth reviews, satisfying WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS. —innotata 15:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So [6] and [7] qualify as in-depth reviews? To me, one sentence mentioning the text is not an "in-depth review", leaving only a single review of arguable substance (two pages in a quarterly of 600+ pages). Is that sufficient to satisfy "significant coverage"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review is four pages long and clearly amounts to significant coverage. James500 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent. Let me clarify and show my math, the text of the 1810 review is 2+2*(1/2) pages with one page being 99% quoting of text from the book, which is where I got the count of 2 pages of actual review. I would still maintain that this is not a detailed review, but more like an grade school book report based on a hasty perusal of the text. It certainly is coverage, but not significant. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, what the reviewer actually says is that a hasty perusal convinced him that his initial suspicions about the author's motives were misplaced. But on the next page of the review, the reviewer says that he has "perused the whole with some attention". So presumably he has read it carefully and given it careful thought. I think the length is fine. I would accept decent sized paragraphs, never mind whole pages. The canonical example of insignificant coverage is a single sentence. The guideline also refers to half a paragraph. We clearly have more than that. James500 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "half a paragraph" is about the WP article, not the amount of coverage in the ref: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Note that my argument has been that we have half a paragraph and no seeds for a whole article. Anyway, I bow out at this point. czar ♔ 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article already has more than half a paragraph, and there is enough source material to write a lot more than that. James500 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive hits in Book Review Digest online or JSTOR (that's coverage or reviews) for either the author or the title (a bit more for "tyrant of the earth", though). I can try to hit up the bound BRD eventually. The uses in the article are all single-sentence mentions (apart from the one review) culled from a Google Books search. No sig cov in multiple reliable, secondary sources. No worthwhile redirect targets (unclear who the author is). Please ping me if more offline sources are uncovered. czar ♔ 16:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. Significant coverage refers to the totality of coverage. GNG doesn't actually require multiple sources, though we do have them in this case. Why would we want to delete a book published in 1809? Bearing in mind our problems with recentism (systematic bias). Don't you think it is unreasonable to nitpick over thew precise level of coverage in a case like this? We have at least one very detailed review and coverage extending over hundreds of years. James500 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even with that definition of totality of coverage rather than multiple sources, there is no totality here. Hundreds of years and the best we can find is a single review and a handful of mentions? It doesn't pass any of our notability standards by any measure. (We also don't fight systemic bias by weakening established consensus but by looking harder for sources: I searched several academic databases.) NOT42 is sour grapes—I think it's much smarter to link to 42 than to directly link to the individual pages. Anyone who hasn't already read the pages is better served by the guidance of 42 than by the shell shock of a tome of policy. czar ♔ 17:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also wasn't a notable book in its time. In a search of 50 ProQuest databases, there were eight hits from the early 1800s and they were almost all "lists of new publications" (no commentary). The journal hit was a letter/commentary on wondering who the author was. You can read it in HathiTrust. No hits in LexisNexis. This article topic is not notable. czar ♔ 17:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no established consensus that four pages of coverage is not significant. There is a need to rewrite GNG to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is it is not significant. The truth of the matter is that there is plenty of coverage. More than is actually necessary. The reason for systematic bias is that there was much less publishing going on in the distant past in the first place due to poverty and that a lot of sources have been destroyed. The only way to avoid that is to accept a reduced standard of coverage. "Virtual representation" cannot be taken for granted. There could be other reviews. GBook's search engine's OCR does not appear to be perfect. And it doesn't contain all books anyway (as of the last time I checked). So we can also invoke NRVE, if it comes down to that. James500 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sources (wasn't worth it, don't recommend it), and I disagree that the four-page article (which says little about the book) and a few passing mentions is both "plenty of coverage ... more than is actually necessary" or enough to "address the topic directly and in detail" (significant coverage). Can't discuss the rest without getting off-topic. czar ♔ 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The four page book review says an enormous amount about the book. The Australian source also seems to say quite a bit about the manuscript. All of this is direct and detailed. The remain sources are not passing mentions. They might be relatively brief, but their mention of this topic cannot be regarded as purely incidental. Inclusion in a select bibliography, for example, appears to be a deliberate recommendation. And lots of brief mentions can contribute to notability. Advising people not to look at the sources is not helpful. It is important that participants look at sources in order to subject the nomination to adequate scrutiny. James500 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the thorough research done by Czar, demonstrating the subject's non-notability. Reyk _YO! 05:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't demonstrated anything. His argument depends entirely on his interpretation of "significant coverage" (his opinions), which others do not agree with. James500 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I do agree with it, because it is based on sound reasoning and thorough consideration of the sources. Reyk _YO! 10:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be correct in thinking that that argument is essentially that the amount of coverage isn't enough because it isn't? BKCRIT suggests that two reviews is enough for a modern book. But the overall number of book reviews published in 1809 must (for economic reasons that are not relevant to notability) have been less than half the overall number published in 2013. So common sense (which is what NBOOKS recommends) requires that we accept a single review for any book published before the date on which the overall number of reviews first exceeded half of what it is now (which must have been long after 1809). And of course, when you actually look at the definition of "subject" in NBOOKS, you'll notice that it is not obvious that it does exclude all of the other sources anyway. James500 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop badgering. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't accept the coverage provided meets GNG. Ultimately, that the book existed does not give the reader any reason the book was important. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote this review of 1810 seems to have thought the book was culturally important, or something like that. They say that they "really regret" that the book is too expensive for people of limited means and would like to see it more widely distributed. James500 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — If you look at the state of the article from this edit (after the creator of this article made his/her final edit to it), it is clearly evident that the original intent of this article was to "showcase" polmic discussions about this work found in anti-Mormon internet forums. That material was correctly removed by other editors in subsequent edits, which didn't leave much left. Just as that self-published internet forum material was not pertinent to an encyclopedia article, there is no real reason at this point for any WP article about this obscure work, given the dearth of reputable reliable sources that indicate any reasonable form of notability, notoriety, fame/infamy, influence, or really anything above the level of confirming it's existence. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 16:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of the WP article is irrelevant. We should not exclude a topic just because someone hijacked it and used it as a coatrack and vehicle for unreliable sources. That problem has already been dealt with by editing out the offending material. If need be, the page can be protected to prevent re-insertion. There are apparently reliable sources (from 1810 and 1908) providing critical appraisal that goes beyond confirmation of mere existence. And as for criticism directed at perceived lack of importance, this topic is not obviously more objectionable than a lot of the stuff we have on contemporary popular culture, especially the stuff we let in under WP:ATHLETE. James500 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really?!? An other stuff exists argument? ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. snow DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Edmund Wolters[edit]

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

Some random guy who studied birds. There are not any sources that are just about him except his Obituary in what I guess is a "trade paper" for birdwatchers. Does not meet WP:GNG MayVenn (talk) 02:56, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. A distinguished professor, head of department at Museum Koenig, author of a major systematising work in his field, influential in his groundbreaking use of cladistics, awarded an honorary doctorate and membership in a foreign learned society. In my view these meet WP:PROF, and it should of course be noted that The Auk is an academic journal of ornithology. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This reminds me of a poem by John Lillison: O pointy birds, o pointy pointy, Anoint my head, anointy-nointy. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir and Grayfell. Comments such as "random guy" and "trade paper for birdwatchers" indicate the frivolity of the nomination. Please take such matters more seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep disruptive nomination, meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Cavarrone 08:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teppo Felin[edit]

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

(Self-)promotional article about a seemingly non-notable professor. Of the three references in the article two are about books that were co-authored by Felin (with several others), and make no mention at all of Felin, while the third simply points to his page at Oxford, showing that he works there, but does nothing to establish his notability. And from what I can see he does not meet any of the criteria for "basic" notability listed at WP:PROF. Thomas.W ^talk 13:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His professor title, in the English system, means a bit more than in the US system, closer to a distinguished professorship. And his Google scholar profile shows enough highly-cited papers to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But it's only a weak keep because there seem to be so few secondary sources available about him or his work that could be used to put some meaningful content into our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Some additional information has been added to the article, including editorship of the journal Strategic Organization. This gives him a case for WP:PROF#C8, but again only a weak one, since he is one of four co-editors-in-chief. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to add a little more background from his web page at Oxford, and there's further possible material there and on WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In my experience, the citation record is marginal relative to our PROF C1 criteria, but "marginal" meaning "at the margin", neither below it or above. it. I don't see particularly painful promotionally issues in the existing revision, so I lean keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I cannot quite understand from the available material just why Oxford awarded him a professorate, but I can only assume that this is my deficiency in knowledge. It would be absurd to think that I'm the more reliable judge ... DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been unable to confirm this, but his description as a professor of strategy (and not the professor of strategy) would suggest he holds a personal chair and not an established chair. The latter at Oxford certainly would qualify him for notability per WP:NACADEMICS #5 (as the majority of established chairs in the UK are not actually named), but I'm not sure the former would. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disruptive nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yurika Kubo[edit]

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

Only has ONE MAJOR role, and it's just in an anime. Has only done animes and video games. Fails WP:NACTOR MayVenn (talk) 02:45, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no deletion rationale presented. The article lists 16 television roles, a handful of OVA roles and a couple of game roles. Any analysis of which might be considered "significant" and why the others are not? "Just in an anime" or "only done animes and video games" are not valid reasons for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They may be right, as I think her only starring role is in Love Live!…I have been worried this article would be nominated for deletion, and I wouldn't want it to be deleted. I think a main Love Live! role would be enough to establish notability, but other users won't buy that... However, I think her roles in The "Hentai" Prince and the Stony Cat. and Kotoura-san should be considered significant, and make her meet WP:NACTOR. The rest of her anime roles are very minor; her role in Guided Fate Paradox might not count since she is credited as the Love Live! character. —innotata 03:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we need a discussion about it, let's have one. But this shouldn't be it; this is just a pointy, harassing nomination not based on policy at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suggest that this be closed; if another editor thinks this should be deleted, they can start a new AfD. —innotata 17:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as above. Perhaps the nominator, MayVenn, who is a new user, first edit 5 October 2014, should be forgiven for not understanding deletion practice and notability guidelines. However, based on this edit where MayVenn said Some User chose to write a ton of articles about people who went to his fancy school for rich people in England. None of them are notable, but because some "Administrators" and "Senior Editors" love the British Empire they think we have to "open the floodgates" to everybody who got some medal or are in some "Who's Who", ..., and this edit which said If even the British Empire-loving "Senior Ediotrs" who made most of these junk articles get kept think this should be deleted, that is a sign. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your fancy school and all the "famous" Imperialists who went there., this account seems to be a reincarnation of the Bristolbottom account which nominated 22 articles for deletion of Bedford Modern School alumni, only three of which were deleted, and most were keep will solid "keep" votes under clear guidelines. The MayVenn account is also similar to Bristolbottom in that they both immediately commenced AFD nominations as their initial edits. --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no other conclusion seems possible DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Dickinson[edit]

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

Not notable. No "significant coverage" and has no accomplishments apart from making a "field guide to the birds". Some random staff member at a museum. MayVenn (talk) 02:40, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true, he has published work of some influence, including taxonomic revisions, and has been on the ICZN, a fairly important position. I suggest this be procedurally closed, as the nominator has just been trying to prove a point, with no prejudice to immediate relisting. —innotata 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disruptive nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bergslagen Artillery Regiment[edit]

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

Not notable. No "independent sources", just its own publicity. Sweden was never in any wars after 1943 (not until 2001.…… MayVenn (talk) 02:42, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any battalion or above military units can be presumed to be notable (WP:MILUNIT). Regimental histories aren't just publicity and there are a few more sources on the Swedish Wikipedia. The nominator seems to be trying to prove a point. —innotata 06:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what MILUNIT says. A regiment is listed as one of the subjects that are "likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about presumption earlier…anyway, there's ample coverage, and the only question is whether this should be merged. I don't think so, but I don't think an AfD is needed to discuss this, and I suggest this AfD be closed procedurally, since the nominator's intention was to disrupt. —innotata 19:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Sweden has not been in war for a long tine is no reason for deletion. User Innotatal is right about WP:POINT. For that reason keeping the article is the best option.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect. As long as there is a whole book about the history of the regiment (ref 1) it appears to be likely notable and expandable. At best, it should merged with Artillery Regiment (2000) (or even merging both articles somewhere else could be in order), but it is reasonable we have a Bergslagen Artillery Regiment entry (as a redirect to a section or as a separate article). Cavarrone 15:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between this regiment and the 2000 regiment is just the designation "A 9", and the 2000 regiment saw all the Swedish artillery regiments brought together. As both articles could easily be expanded, I'd prefer to see it remain separate. —innotata 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Battalion-sized or larger units are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is substantive coverage in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Apartments[edit]

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

A likely creation of Wiki-PR, suggest delete and salt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Paid editing is against wiki-rules. MayVenn (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, uh, no it isn't. Lack of declaration of COI is a violation of WMF's Terms of Service. This is a discussion about notability, however, not whether best editing practice has been followed. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not quite qualify for a g11, but certainly come close. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Gene93k. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k has not argued for deletion. James500 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me misreading things in the edit window, I meant per DGG. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. See this from the second source (Phllymag): "Campus Apartments is now the largest student housing provider in the City of Philadelphia, with a footprint of about two million square feet. And with properties in 50 other college towns around the country, Campus has become the largest privately owned student housing company in the nation." Carrite (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. I think the largest privately owned student housing company in the US is notable. James500 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. This sounds way too promotional. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite actually wants to keep this page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sounding way too promotional" is an editing matter. This is an inquiry about notability... Carrite (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bartscher[edit]

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

Some non-notable German logistics officer. Fails WP:BLP1E. He only got an article because he got shot by a so called "Taliban" and somebody else died. MayVenn (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General officers are considered notable (WP:SOLDIER), because they have important postings, as this person has had. The nominator seems to be trying to prove a point. —innotata 06:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General officers are considered notable per WP:SOLDIER, which is a generally recognised standard for those who actually know about these things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW, and part of a string of disruptive nominations by this editor. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walther Bacmeister[edit]

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

Not notable. Sounds like main thing he ever did, was make a catalog in a library (lol). He also was a "Judge" for the Nazis, but if that makes him notable, don't we need sources on it? I can't tell whether the article has any real sources or not. MayVenn (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He must have significant coverage in the main source cited, which says that he did important research on bird distributions. He received the Federal Cross of Merit first class, which should establish his notability, per WP:ANYBIO. The nominator seems to be trying to prove a point. —innotata 06:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and very likely WP:GNG, part of a retaliatory mass nomination against another editor. Cavarrone 08:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Clear keep--his works are more completely listed in the German version. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Federal Cross of Merit alone is sufficient to meet basic biographical notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well-known ornithologist with 240 publications on the distribution and biology of birds, particularly those of south-western Germany. Walther Bacmeister (1873-1966), Jurist und weitbekannter Ornithologe und Ehrenmitglied des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde seit 1947. from here. Meets WP:ACADEMIC #1 and #3. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A full DNB entry is perhaps the gold standard of notability; snow or speedy, whichever. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sturgeon[edit]

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

Not notable. He was a "LTC" and did not get any medals, so does not meet WP:SOLDIER. --MayVenn (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC) MayVenn (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article quite clearly establishes his notability with the quotes of tributes, and he has a Dictionary of National Biography entry (on which the article is based), which establishes his notability by itself. The nominator has an axe to grind with me, and this should be a speedy keep. —innotata 04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedy keep because of the obvious bad faith nomination; no objection to immediate relisting. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pile (voice actress)[edit]

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

Some Random actress who was an amazing ONE role and some CDs. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Does not meet Wikipedia:General notability guideline. It was super hypocritical to say a Black actress with multiple famous rules was not notable and try to censor her article while making an article on a Japanese actress with ONE role. I guess she's super "Kawaii Desu"… MayVenn (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:23, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so this is a pointy nomination in retaliation for what? It was opened a minute after another of your AFDs leaving no time for WP:BEFORE (obviously). Why shouldn't this just be closed? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Stalwart111 This user has been nominating a lot of articles I've worked on for deletion just now, now I see why: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danièle Watts. Obviously I don't have an issue with this being closed, but in fairness the nomination doesn't seem made without thought, her notability isn't flat-on-its-face obvious. Other users have made the mistake of thinking she's had only one role, in Love Live!. However, she has two main roles in video games as well (WP:NACTOR met) and very minor live-action roles, plus some music releases that have been on the Oricon charts (WP:MUSBIO met, I think), and I hope the sources amount to significant independent coverage. —innotata 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MUSICBIO (2). She released a solo album as the character Maki Nishikino from Love Live!, and it charted [8]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not a fan of the way the nomination was made but there are enough issues here that it is a concern that there are so many non-English sources. If what is being said is that there are no other English sources of the same validity and then we have about 100% non-English sources, it seems to indicate that the subject does not pass the threshold of our standard. She may be notable in Japan...is that enough for an article on the English Wikipedia? That's a real question. I truly don't know.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are not an issue, notability does not have to be in English-speaking countries, and there are a number of English sources. She meets the notability guidelines for musicians (album that charted) and actors (multiple significant roles). There aren't any other issues that have been raised, so are you sure you're commenting on the right AfD? —innotata 07:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. snow, but please add the additional info from the jaWP DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kōji Makaino[edit]

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

Some random soundtrack composer. Does not meet WP:GNG. MayVenn (talk) 02:00, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? He's composed the soundtrack to 12 anime series, 6 films, and 4 drama series. On the Japanese Wikipedia you can see he has composed music for about 100 TV series in total, and dozens of notable artists' releases. He's quite famous for some of credits such as Rose of Versailles. —innotata 04:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this 'random' jibe works fine in the case of models and suchlike, but try deleting the article on Boccherini on the grounds that he is "Some random classical composer". (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fellow ZSoc London is always notability; describing multiple species is always notability; Snow DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry H. Slater[edit]

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

Some random guy who studied birds. There are not any sources that are just about him except his Obituary in what I guess is a "trade paper" for birdwatchers. Does not meet WP:GNG and does not have proper sources. MayVenn (talk) 02:05, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked around, and I can't find much. A book on the birds of Iceland and that's about it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 04:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has an axe to grind over some of my contributions]], and they are seriously misstating what the references are. The "trade paper for birdwatchers" is Ibis, a prestigious journal of ornithology. There are 5 (reliable) sources, all of which give him significant coverage, so this article meets WP:GNG. —innotata 04:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aimi Tomori[edit]

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

Some random Japanese model. Does not meet WP:GNG. Does not have any REAL sources and nothing in English. Makes no sense. Someone probably made this because they are some "Otaku" obsessed with her. MayVenn (talk) 02:03, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - complete lack of deletion rationale. You haven't explained why the sources aren't reliable and don't represent significant coverage of the subject. The fact that they aren't in English is irrelevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although this user has been opening AfDs for articles by me and (as here) my collaborator on Pile (voice actress) to make a point, this is one where they likely are right. There are no independent sources (although this is not obvious!). I doubt she's notable; I don't know Japanese or how to research and assess her notability. The article was created by a newbie whom I'm helping out, who is not familiar with all of our policies (note: I know from off-wiki communications that the article creator will be offline for some time). —innotata 04:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (probably): The sources don't amount to much, not because they are in Japanese, but because they are blogs, passing mentions, 4th place in some beauty contest sort of thing. Personally I don't see any harm in including obscure personalities (compared with the harm of junk articles like Korean influence on Japanese culture), but I don't see any real evidence of notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imaginatorium and innotata.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blog sources, N not inherited for performing in same event with notable bands like MomoClo and more per above closed the deal of speedy keeping this pointy and spotty nomination (sorry Stalwart). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise H. If we need to have a discussion about this then we should have a discussion about this. I just don't think it should be in this context, as retaliation for something else. Maybe that's policy wonkery, but I don't like giving a harassing and disruptive editor exactly what they want. Take away the soapbox. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find more intormation and sourcing though she might me well know in Japan Scottwin (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the usual places in Japan for independent news on gravure idols--sports papers, entertainment sites, etc.--and could not find much other than a few mentions. Nothing significant. Her Japanese page was made by an SPA, and the English one is just a translation of that. Perhaps her only verifiable claim to fame is multiple appearances on a late-night variety show on a minor network [9], but unless we can find other RS or she appears on other shows in major roles, she doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Michitaro (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wilson (politician)[edit]

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

" a prospective parliamentary candidate" would seem to fail WP:Politician —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN per Gaff. If this person is actually elected to Parliament, then a biography can be created at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the article indicates attained biogaphical notability, whether in working life, time on a local council or previous and prospective parliamentary candidature. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ANYBIO. In current state the article also fails WP:BLP critieria, though an AfD is likely to conclude before a WP:BLPPROD. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Your run-of-the-mill Prospective Parliamentary Candidate bio. No sign of notability here, if he gets elected by all means create, but that seems unlikely since this guy is a Conservative and UKIP are thrashing the tories right across the country.Kiwiguy12 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things may or may not change between now and the election date — so it's best not to engage in speculation about his chances of winning or losing. Not that speculation would make a difference either way, per WP:CRYSTAL, but it has the potential to be misconstrued as a "deletion because of bias" argument instead of a "deletion because of policy" one. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unelected candidate with nothing approaching significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiller54 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prospective Parliamentary Candidates are not eligible for articles on Wikipedia just for being PPCs — if you cannot properly demonstrate and source that they qualify for an article under a different inclusion guideline independently of their candidacy, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. But that hasn't been demonstrated here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in 2015 if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to clear the Special Notability high bar for politicians. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically agree above analyses regarding WP:POLITICIAN that he needs to be elected first. I am One of Many (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A full DNB entry is lways notability, no other conclusion is possible. Snow. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Livingstone Robe[edit]

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

Not notable. Some random Lieutenant who was at some famous battles MayVenn (talk) 01:55, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user clearly has some sort of axe to grind with me (!), and has been nominating a lot of clearly notable articles I created or had something to do with. This one deserves a more detailed reply, though. I'd expect people to argue for merging to William Robe (his father's article), but I won't agree with them. We usually consider an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, from which this article was copied, to be evidence of notability—because the DNB editors decided that the person was notable enough to include by their fairly stringent standards. This officer only had a subarticle in his father's longer article, also ported into Wikipedia. However, this subarticle is pretty long; it's long enough to create the short Wikipedia article that exists, and would be too long and detailed at his father's article. Considering this length and its content, I think this means the DNB entry confers notability on him. In addition, he received the Army Gold Medal twice, in recognition of distinguished command at a level equivalent to battalion commander, which I would believe meets WP:SOLDIER, similarly to two DSOs. —innotata 03:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chemban Vinod[edit]

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

Looks like a too soon case. Now maybe someday, but not yet. Yeah he has done a few films but none of his things seem notable as of now. Wgolf (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : fails WP:GNG. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nom. No notability established.Moudul hasan (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ingersoll Rand. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interflex[edit]

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

The article is waiting for the additional citations for verification since August 2008 and there is no one or reliable sources to sort it out. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Ingersoll Rand (and add it to the list of corporate subsidiaries). It's real, and I can source that. Interflex was purchased by Ingersoll Rand during a well-documented slate of mergers. I'm uncertain whether there's sufficient reliable sourcing to warrant a standalone article, but the worst case is that it can live happily in its corporate parent's. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only 3rd party resource is not one I would consider reliable. It is a web site dedicated to the life and works of a single person, Hugh Schonfeld, and founded apparently by him and his wife/companion. That is not enough for me to give this site "reliable" status. Other than that I can only find marketing materials, mostly on the Interflex web site. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significance coverage in secondary sources. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, as per nom. and Fauzan. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, SPA votes discarded as they did not contain valid argumentation--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Abrian[edit]

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

NOTE: I am striking comments by seven sockpuppets, in one of the crudest and most blatant examples of mass sockpuppetry at AfD that I have seen for a long time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puff piece written by one of his managers Casa Italiana Del Lusso. Borderline notable, article must be rewritten from scratch. Alexf^(talk) 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the article is well cited, I checked all the references (Wikimlswiki (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
— Wikimlswiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep I don't find any reason why this article should be proposed for deletion. Everything has reference and the subject is well known and recognised. Scottwin (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC) *keep the article is well sorted and person is well known and here is a newspaper in Arabic writing about it. See Link Artilicks (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Artilicks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * Speedy keep, what’s wrong with this article? A young guy with a lot of achievements on international level, and we should absolutely write about him. Can you imagine a 22 years old boy already an ambassador!! I suggest to add pictures and gallery.. Salus19 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Salus19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment to the users recommending a speedy keep. Can you provide a specific rationale for a speedy keep? I don't see any evidence that this is a bad-faith nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Comment the proposal for deletion is exaggerated and comments has been made against the policy of wikipedia where some people might have been disrupted by using unproper words puff piece written by one of his managers to remind all the users wikipedia is not a place to conclude personal assumptions and respect should be shown. I don't see any reason to propose this article for deletion, instead I would improve it and add images and gallery as Salus recommended. Artilicks (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's an essay on Wikipuffery, it's not an unreasonable term to use. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Comment: I don't see that the article is by any sense a puff piece and according to the wiki policy editors should Assume good faith try to help the project and not hurt. In addition, I have edited some references that i found useful --Salus19 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep the article is superb only needs images --Kevinvonro (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Kevinvonro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Clear vanity article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OMG. This is magnificent. The subject PROBABLY passes, but the article itself (and the Keep Votes here) is pretty much just one long high pitched semi-orgasmic Adoring-Fan scream. The sourcing/cites are atrocious. I'm actually pretty impressed at how bad it is! Mabalu (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My thoughts exactly. That is why I started it, after a PROD was removed by OP. Subject might be notable. Article is pure vanity. It was worse at the time of the AfD creation, since fixed up a little. As I said, article should be re-written as NPOV with proper sourcing. As-is, I don't see why it should stay. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - It seems like a competition here who is against and who is supporting; the article has been improved and the subject is notable.

for some people who suggest delete, try to keep WP respectful pitch on the talk page and do Not use the talk page as a forum as The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. --Lildreib (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Lildreib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep - just read the article and did some minor edits. The subject is notable and it seems that many wikipedians has improved it since the Afd creation. --G.pitu (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— G.pitu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Puff piece that reads more like a story or essay than an article. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 15:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipuffery. st170e^talk 15:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mostly relies on primary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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