Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 October	10 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayera Reza[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary, commercial and bloggy/youtubey "sourcing" with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a musician who's presented in such a blatantly advertorial tone ("Technically very sound, Sayera’s rich voice, impressive range, and distinct voice signature have made her unique in the music industry. Especially she is exquisite in Sufi and Lalon songs.") that WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies regardless of her notability or lack thereof. She might certainly qualify for a properly written article, if she can be properly sourced as actually passing an WP:NMUSIC criterion, but even Beyoncé wouldn't be entitled to keep an article in this condition. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am in agreement with Bearcat; the article either needs a major overhaul or needs to go. It is full of unencyclopedic wording. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Citations consist of multiple YouTube references, wordpress, several other sources of songs, and one dead link which the waback machine shows to be yet another vendor of songs. The article itself is full of unencyclopedic, POV language: glorious, unique, truly gifted. Does she satisfy WP:MUSICBIO? Maybe she satisfies "two or more albums on a major record label" or "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". However, I want specific proof, not general claims.

If she turns out to be notable, it would be easier to start from scratch than to try and rescue the current text.

(On the lighter side, the first thing mentioned in the lead is that she is well-groomed? Really? To be fair, I think the writer is trying to use groom in the sense of "to train", but I couldn't resist.) --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the observations. I agree with them; those errors were made due to not reading the wiki guidelines before posting the first ever article. I have now addressed all the observations. Provided enough secondary/authoritative references to prove the Singers credibility. There are many others which are in the process of collection. Also worked on the attributive words. Uploaded authoritative pics as well. Hope the article is now of wiki standard; discussion for deletion will be closed and will not be deleted.(Mareza1970 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep In response to the comments of Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC), I would argue that the Singer has two solo albums and numerious mixed audio and video albums from the top two record labels of Bangladesh: Laser Vision and G-Series. (Lalshobuj (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ could not agree with Bearcat, because the singer fulfills the criterion of WP:NMUSIC and regarding WP:GNG- yes some of the URLs were wrong but now corrected. (Mareza1970 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not put "Keep" more than once; only once is sufficient to express your desire to keep the page. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A singer doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC just because you assert that she passes NMUSIC — it's actually a fairly frequent marketing tactic for musicians who want Wikipedia articles to claim that they pass an NMUSIC criterion (e.g. a "hit single" that was actually only ever played once on one radio station in their own hometown; "collaboration" with a famous musician just because the celebrity once retweeted them, etc.) that they actually don't pass when we investigate more deeply. Rather, what gets a singer past NMUSIC is the quality of reliable sourcing that you can or cannot add to verify that the assertion of passing NMUSIC is true. Without reliable source verification, they still fail NMUSIC regardless of the claim to passing it. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any reliable sources, done deal. Fails the GNG. Is there anyone who disagrees other than the SPAs? Nha Trang 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Damini[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, created by her own record label (WP:COI) and relying entirely on bloggy, primary and blurbalicious "sources" without a shred of substantive reliable source coverage in sight. There's a potentially valid claim of notability being made here, but a person doesn't get past WP:NMUSIC on the assertion itself — the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the accuracy of the assertion is what passes or fails NMUSIC. So I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if proper sourcing can be ponied up — but in this state, it's a poorly sourced advertisement that isn't entitled to stick around. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brief bio on MTV; not much in Brazilian news media, not much in major international news, nor much in US news, not much in music-related news (except brief MTV bio), but there are lots of images (if you click images), and then there's this YouTube video with 200,000+ listens. Video looks professionally produced, shot, high production values, she's cute, can sing and dance, meaning she's being promoted most likely, being packaged. However, sources seem insufficient to meet the WP:GNG at this point, so it looks like WP:TOOSOON but I hope she's back in Wikipedia in a few years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly A. Stine[edit]

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

Self-published writer; fails WP:AUTHOR. Article seems more appropriate for a blog. Blackguard 22:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator, no reliable sources, article edited by subject (CoI warning left on user talk), unencyclopedic article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: such blatant promotion for a non-notable it could have been speedied, IMO. Quis separabit? 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fikile Mthwalo[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources (mostly her own website, but also a cybersquatted dead link and a YouTube video), of a person whose claims of notability are entirely of the promotional/advertorial variety. (Representative example of this article's tone: "She started working at the age of 15 and knows that nothing comes without a vision and hard work.") A quick Google search didn't offer anything in the way of reliable source coverage to salvage this with, either. It's certainly possible that she might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, if good sourcing can be dug out of a news archive I don't have access to, but she's not entitled to keep this in its current form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pulling searches on google removing her own website and wikipedia bring roughly 4,000 hits, of which are soundcloud, LinkedIn, etc. -- there's nothing that even remotely comes close to establishing her notability. The article reads entirely like a autobio and is minorly adverty. I tried pulling up some newspaper hits but alas that pulled up 0 results. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:32, 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. Secret ^account 17:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Bible[edit]

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

Article should be merged with Judy Carter, as the only secondary source is an very brief passing mention, and there is no other claim to significance per WP:BKCRIT Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Judy Carter book the Comedy Bible has been mentioned in the Washigton post and the Huffington Post both are notable secondary sources that are not at all related to comedy or public speaking. 204.102.74.5 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post blurb is so short the article literally repeats the entire thing in a single sentence. The Huffington Post blurb, also very brief, is a blog by part-time stand-up comic who has not been established as an expert. This is not substantial coverage, just passing mentions. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nope, no there there. Just two passing mentions. To pass the GNG, the subject has to be discussed in "significant detail," and a single sentence's worth of mention doesn't cut it. Nha Trang 20:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mantey[edit]

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

The Usher of the Black Rod is a purely ceremonial position in a Westminster-style legislature, with no actual political authority — the position makes him an employee of the legislature, so unlike the actual MLAs this position doesn't confer a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. But the volume of sourcing here isn't substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG, and the claimed controversy over his travel spending just makes him a WP:BLP1E. His name is already listed in Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan's subsection on its Ushers of the Black Rod, which is the level of coverage he warrants in an encyclopedia — there's simply no need for a separate WP:BLP here if this is all that can actually be written about him. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has a very wide and illustrious political experience and footprint within the Province of Saskatchewan. And he is more noticeable in the provincial newspapers and was the main person of interest in the provincial expense scandal in CBC News this year summer. I think you seriously underestimated his influence just because he isn't working in the federal level. (It's really disappointing to see how Wikipedians neglect Canadian provincial politicians quite often.) But anyways, I try to put more citations and pieces of info to improve this article. Keep Komitsuki (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians, for the record, do not have a pattern of "neglecting" Canadian provincial politicians. Provincial politicians are entitled to exactly the same set of considerations as federal politicians are — for example, every single incumbent provincial legislator in any Canadian province or territory already has an article, without even one single solitary MLA in the entire country missing or redlinked. And that's a better record than the US, where lots of current state-level legislators are still redlinks. (Further, as the nominator here I should also point out that I'm just about the last person who could ever actually be accused of discounting the notability of provincial politicians — I was the initial creator of well over 90 per cent of those articles.) But you still haven't added any claim to this article that gets this person past NPOL — being an unelected civil servant does not confer an automatic presumption of notability. And every single new source you've added to the article since I listed it here is a primary source (government's own press releases, etc.) which cannot augment his notability at all, so you still haven't improved his claim to a WP:GNG pass either. And finally, it's not a provincial vs. federal "double standard" — if he'd held the exact same roles working for the federal government instead of the provincial government in Saskatchewan he still wouldn't qualify for a standalone BLP on Wikipedia, because it's the roles themselves that aren't inherently notable, not the level of government he did them for. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of you listing out your complaints here, how about you helping me improving this article? I think it's more productive than acting offensively towards another Wikipedian. You look like you're a Canadian citizen. (I'm not) Maybe you have better insights than me when it comes to this. So, come on. I demand you to help me. Komitsuki (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Responding to points of disagreement in a deletion discussion is not "acting offensively towards another Wikipedian" — it's how the discussion process works, and your sensitivity settings will need to be adjusted downward if you have a problem with that. And I'm under no obligation to comply with a "demand" to help you improve an article for which I'm the person who nominated it for deletion in the first place. And yes, I am a Canadian, and my "better insights than you" are that there isn't a serious notability claim to be had here — the most "notable" thing here is a purely ceremonial role that doesn't confer any political authority, and that fact is the "special Canadian insight" that I've already given. You have every right in the world to disagree with me — that's why I put it up for discussion rather than simply speedying it on sight — but kindly refrain from attacking other people just for disagreeing with you. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the most "notable" thing here is a purely ceremonial role that doesn't confer any political authority

First, I edited this article several times and the most notable thing that Rick Mantey has ever done to make the news all over Canada for two months was from the fact that he was involved in a big expense-related scandal. Ever since I edit this article I never tried to emphasize on his former duty as the Black Rod. Second, The most ceremonial thing that Rick Mantey has ever done was the Black Rod and there is only one sentence about him being the Black Rod. And I mean only one sentence. Third, should we delete Kevin S. MacLeod, the Black Rod for the Canadian Senate? Almost all of this article's content is about his ceremonial duties and his ceremonial role is the only notable thing about him. And fourth, I believe your tone was rather aggressive towards me. Tone your voice down a little and strive for a win-win solution. The whole reason Wikipedia isn't dynamic anymore is that everybody loses and moderators and/or people who propose deletions express aggressively toward ordinary or new contributors like myself. So, I beg you. Strive for a win-wing solution, please. Komitsuki (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I change the category and the description. Would that fit much better? Because since he is not a politician, but a civil servant? Komitsuki (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two ways Rick Mantey could achieve notability. The first is by satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. In effect, that would get him the presumption of notability, without having to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Unfortunately, there's no way he satisfies the enumerated requirements. Thus, he must satisfy the general notability guidelines. The only coverage of note is about a one time event: the expense scandal. Other references are just in passing, e.g., an article about iPads that mentions his name; that does not qualify as significant coverage. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, he's not a politician. I changed it to public servant which fits his role. So, the WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply here. Second, one big coverage of him is enough. This scandal involving him is one of the biggest in the provincial levels especially in the Canadian Prairie region. And there are tons of stud articles here with each of them having only one major coverage. And by the way, Don Head (public servant)'s article doesn't have anything notable to readers at all and should we delete this Don Head article? The problem is this: who gets to judge an article's notability when everyone's biased or of lack of knowledge? This article is proposed for deletion because of my mistake of catagorizing this Rick Mantey article as a politican. Komitsuki (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But actually, there are two cases of notability. Whether one thinks of ceremonial functions as wasteful or not. Rick Mantey had been the very first Black Rod in Sasketchewan. Komitsuki (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A subject doesn't pass the notability bar because you think he's done something important. He passes the notability bar when he passes the GNG or a subordinate notability criteria. This guy hasn't. There's certainly coverage of this minor scandal, but that falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Nha Trang 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very wrong to think it was a minor scandal. It was a major provincial-level scandal. And second, he's one of the rarest Black Rods all over the Commonwealth Realm to be appointed in the 21st century. I believe this article passes the general notability to the fullest. And let's not argue with it. And you unfortunately don't know anything what I'm saying. I pity myself for encountering this misfortune. No wonder why Wikipedia is in decline, right? Komitsuki (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For people who think his expense scandal is not note-worthy, these two articles ([1] and [2]) was written 1-2 days ago. This scandal was first publicly discussed in last April of this year. And it's still discussed back and forth even today in the middle of October of this year. Think about it. This is a very serious governmental issue in a rather very underpopulated province called Saskatchewan. And this article describes a guy about his provincial career in Saskatchewan. Komitsuki (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Kearton Medal and Award[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. The Banner talk 20:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant award, given by significant body, to significant people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now looking like a Snow keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daily Telegraph, Developing Animals, BBC News, The Guardian ... Are we now trying to delete articles on quality of reference rather than improving the references after a simple Google search? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Google gives just 95 unique hits... The Banner talk 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive me, I missed the criterion at AFD for unique Google hits. Could you direct me to it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Off course: WP:RS and Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. The Banner talk 20:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks! It's a keep then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable recipients and coverage in papers, -. recommend to add that to the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I am wrong, notability is not inherited so the recipients should have no influence on the notability of the prize. The Banner talk 21:04, 9 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 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary. If there's 95 unique hits, there's 95 unique references that can be used. WP:RS doesn't give a minimum number of applicaple hits. Wikipedia:Trivial mentions would be great, minus 95 unqiue hits (and it's an essay). I'm seeing 23,000 - how many of those are duplicate sites I don't know... but sourcing is certainly available, which eliminates your deletion rationale. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 95 unique hits is certainly sufficient, and the Royal Geographical Society is a major organization that awards 17 different medals (see Royal_Geographical_Society#Medals_and_awards) and there are at least three other articles on their awards. I did a bit of comparison to the USA's National Geographic Society's awards and found we have similar articles such as Hubbard Medal, for the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, we have Massey Medal, and the American Geographical Society has articles on at least 8 or 9 of its awards (see American_Geographical_Society#Medals_and_awards including the Cullum Geographical Medal). This article seems akin to others of its ilk. Yes, other stuff exists" and yes here it is relevant. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tried to google this but I only added 18 independent sources. I could have added a lot more but I got tired, so this is an obvious WP:GNG failure. Trackinfo (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. And close discussion per WP:SNOW. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a British award. British awards tend toward a division into two: a minority that the press bangs on about at tedious length (Booker, Turner, etc), and the majority that go virtually unmentioned. The latter are given only trivial mentions, aside from perhaps an article here or there in some old copy of a journal (for this, most likely a geography, photography or cinemaphotography journal). We could of course stick closely to Wikipedia:Trivial mentions and delete articles such as this until somebody has located the requisite article in the old journal. Or we could note that Wikipedia:Trivial mentions is a mere essay, and decide not to be so short-sighted. The article is currently little more than a mere list, patchily sourced. But it's not an ad, it's harmless, and it could be useful to somebody wanting to learn about the award. And maybe in a few years somebody will be in a position to add an informative paragraph about the award in general. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 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) 03:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manolis Doda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EZSource[edit]

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

Most of the article's sources are not reliable or independent of the subject; they are press releases from the company marketing this product, publicity material from its business partners, or blog posts. The remaining sources are proprietary white papers, though judging from the abstracts these focus on industry problems in general rather than EZSource in particular. (The full reports are behind a $1200 paywall.) I wasn't able to come up with any further reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom pretty much echoes the advice I gave the author on the article's talk page (q.v.). Sources given are mainly blogs and press-releases, some listings under Software a Company uses, with no real analysis or context, and white-papers that seem to describe industry problems in general, with either a passing mention of the company, or a quote from a company exec again with no context. The latest source added to the article refers to the company in passing as "another Cobol tools vendor". Pretty much sums up the depth of coverage found. Crow^Caw 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Crow. Neither these tools nor the parent company seems to have enough significant coverage to confer notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete I will state up front I work for EZSource. I do not see how this page differs from other company pages in the same category like Coverity, CAST, IBM Rational to name but a few.. These all have their own pages and an entry on the Static Code Analysis Tools page. Users searching Wikipedia should have complete information on ALL the tools available to them and the opportunity to decide for themselves whether it is interesting or not. I note that both Gartner and Forrester who are independent software market analysts have Wikipedia pages, the paywall mentioned above by Psychonaut is theirs, not ours. Computer Weekly is a reputable industry journal and the information is freely available. It would be helpful to have some constructive comments about the references we should include. BevB2014 ^EZSource 17.04, 13 October 2014 (CET)
- Hello BevB2014. Please note that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate software directory; this is an encyclopedia which covers only those subjects which have achieved in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject. Please see our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and our guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a more detailed explanation of what sort of references are appropriate. The ones already present in the article are being challenged as failing one or more of the policy/guideline criteria. For example, some of them are not independent of the subject, others lack editorial oversight, and still others are nearly impossible for any editor here to obtain in order to verify. (Strictly speaking, sources which are expensive to obtain are not automatically discounted, though when challenged the onus is on the editor who adds them to show that they support the subject's notability and the factual claims made in the article.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Psychnaut. This I clearly understand, however, I would still like to understand the difference between our page and other, similar published pages by many other vendors, per my examples above. I am working on improving the external references and linkage to key topics of interest to people who typically look at this space. Therefore I request that the page stays up to allow me the opportunity to do that plus input from other sources. —BevB2014 (talk) 14.03, 14 October 2014 (CET) — Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you link to a specific article here, then maybe I or someone else can point out how the sources differ. Of course, it's possible that they don't differ qualitatively at all, in which case that other page should also be either improved or nominated for deletion – there are a lot of such pages which may have been simply overlooked. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the input, it's appreciated. I am committed to getting our page improved and independently verified per the feedback and will make those changes over the course of the next week.Happy then to have another discussion on the verifiable references and independence. —BevB2014 (talk) 12.03, 16 October 2014 (CET) — Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails the GNG, period. Especially if paid employees are working on the article - which is a serious breach of WP:COI - a month's long enough for that information to be added if it exists. Since it hasn't, I expect it doesn't. No prejudice to recreation should any reliable sources materialize, but we don't leave up promotional articles without sources. Nha Trang 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School of Thinking[edit]

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

Apparently promotional split article from article on author(s). The extraordinary claim for the number of students needs direct citation to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I removed the un-referenced statement about the number of students as such strong claims clearly need to be backed up by sources. Sources that I was unable to locate. The article is clearly promotional and I suggest ought be speedily deleted accordingly. AlanS^talk 13:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like spam Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there were multiple sentences of advertising about this school on the page. i removed those in my edit on September 30. i have deleted this content before so i think the could page be watched from spam additions.Diem dior shar (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)'Keep but watch from spam additionsDiem dior shar (talk) 14:27, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious spam is obvious. I just took a spin through the Australian Google, and couldn't find a single news source. Why was this relisted, when the only objection came from a SPA? Nha Trang 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Secret ^account 19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Gharib-Afshar[edit]

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

Article's subject doesn't meet the notability guideline. Additionally, copy editing from here, here etc... 115ash^→(☏) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete QUICKLY Copyright violation and he is not famous. 81.151.128.245 (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While saying nothing on the notability issue, I would note that this article has been in existence for some while and that both of the links in the nomination go to sites which regularly copy material from Wikipedia. I don't think that copyright violation is an issue here. PWilkinson (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication with instructions to author to provide inline citations to reliable sources. If the author has questions about whether a particular source is reliable, it can be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As it is currently written and sourced it fails the significant coverage test. Some of the claims seem dubious, or are at least badly stated, and as written are not supported by the existing references. --Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:35, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:02, 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. WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lallu Vaishya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG flat. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Doesn't fail, Because as per Wikipedia notability policy, an MLA is notable. This article fulfill the notability guidelines. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (India), this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. The article should be improved through normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Members of Legislative Assembly pass WP:POLITICIAN. Not much article content, but it is supported by its reference. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 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. Secret ^account 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errorwear[edit]

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

This survived an AFD nine years ago, but looking at the "Keep, I've heard of it" votes just serves to show how much Wikipedia's standards have improved since then. Totally unsourced, and even the company's own "In the media" page doesn't have anything remotely resembling a reliable source. (Google brings up lots of hits, but nothing apparently resembling a source of any kind.) I personally feel that even if it were sourced, as it stands it would be deletable as spam – and after nine years it's probably reasonable to assume nobody has an interest in improving it – but in light of the previous AFD keep, don't think it's appropriate for a speedy tag. Mogism (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To repeat the good points that were made: nothing much out there, so not notable; even the article seems to say there's not much out there; the company web site doesn't provide any good links (w/respect to Wikipedia requirements). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: VfD voting was surely a ratf***, back in the day; it was a pure headcount, and no one needed to give reasons. Meanwhile, these rotting debris of NN subjects clog up the aether. Nha Trang 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Character Options[edit]

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

advertising, this is not an article about the company but about what they are selling The Banner talk 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced advertising. My quick search shows mostly (Doctor Who) wikia and business directories. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:55, 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. Secret ^account 19:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concave hull[edit]

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

The content of the article is based on a single published paper [3], strangely not cited in the pages. The other references are either unpublished research reports, or a patent (apparently, algorithms may be patented in Portugal) by the same authors, or papers that do not contain the term "concave hull", and cite the paper of these authors as one item among several papers addressing the same problem. Thus this article reports only original research, with one primary source and no secondary source.

The term "concave hull" denotes here a notion that is not well defined (as quoted by the rare papers that use the terms) and is thus undoubtedly non-notable.

A redirect or a merge cannot be done, as the subject of the article is commonly called Shape reconstruction or Contour reconstruction in computational geometry, and the corresponding article does not exist. A move is also excluded, as the article mention only one particular algorithm among many, and thus breaks WP:NPOV policy. D.Lazard (talk) 17:31, 9 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 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well understood concept with a large number of applications. The functionality has been implemented in: Oracle (SDO_GEOM.SDO_CONCAVEHULL and SDO_GEOM.SDO_CONCAVEHULL_BOUNDARY), PostGIS (ST_ConcaveHull), GRASS GIS (v.concave.hull), QGIS (core processing toolbox), OpenJUMP ([4]), LAStools (lasboundary). A recent paper not yet integrated in the article [5], which also describe alpha and chi shapes as they relate to the content of the article. +mt 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't understand this concept. Having looked at the papers mentioned above, I can't seem to locate a definition. It seems like the authors assumed the notion was intuitive and set about calculating it, but of course there's not a unique smallest polygon bounding an arbitrary finite set of points, and in fact the lim inf of areas of non-convex polygons bounding a finite point set is zero, so it's not clear to me at all that the thing they are calculating even exists. This really looks like pseudoscience to me but somebody knowledgeable of computer science should take a look at it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reference by Moreira and Santos was added after you commented. Could you take a look at it? --50.53.57.116 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one possible definition from Park and Oh (2014) "The term ‘convex hull’ indicates the boundary of the minimal convex set containing a given non-empty finite set of points in the plane" +mt 23:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the definition of a convex hull, which is a real concept. A definition of a "concave hull" is still lacking, because there is no minimal non-convex set bounding a finite set of points in the plane. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concave hull is not unique. There is a parameter that controls how refined the hull is. A simple definition of a concave hull of a set of points is a union of disks, with each disk centered on a point of the set. The radius of the disk is the parameter. See the "threshold" parameter here. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article and its sources describe the concave hull as a polygon, and a finite union of disks is never a polygon. D.Lazard (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a simplified example to show how the parameter would be defined. Triangles or hexagons could be used instead of disks. The essential point is that there is a documented "threshold" parameter here. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, again, the link says only that this parameter is ~~an integer~~ a real number in the range 0–10. D.Lazard (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source says: "threshold=float", so the parameter is modeling a real number. Apparently, the parameter is confined to the interval $[0, 10]$ . The source doesn't say why, but the GRASS GIS software is open source. The source code can be downloaded here. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

v.concave.hull is written in Python, and the threshold is converted to a percentage by adding 90. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the relationship between these objects and alpha shapes? Maybe this should just redirect to that article. (Last I looked, the article titled alpha shape lacked any good illustrations.) Michael Hardy (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this too, and from what I see α-shapes predate any other work that has been referred to as "concave hull". Oracle even has a different SDO_GEOM.SDO_ALPHA_SHAPE routine. Duckham et al. (2008) introduced $\chi$ -shapes as distinct from α-shapes from Edelsbrunner et al. (1993) and many other shapes, such as ${\mathcal {A}}$ -shapes, r-shapes, and s-shapes. $\chi$ -shapes are used as a basis for some of the Oracle algorithms, as described by Matt Duckam, and more here. There are several other algorithms developed over the past few years such as swing arm, KNN-based, etc. that appear to be group as "concave hull" algorithms. +mt 23:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A pretty basic concept. With sources now located, this should be an easy keep. (Which is not to say the article as it stands doesn't need to be wrangled into shape; it's a hot mess as it currently stands.) Delete, per comments below ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 03:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reading through the algorithms I'm convinced this is basically garbage. The algorithm from the first source above will return a result dependent on an arbitrary ordering of the point set, and there is the rather strange property that adding points to the set will tend to make the "concave hull" smaller. I'm not impressed by the quality of the references, one of which cites this Wikipedia article. And @Michael Hardy: these are completely unrelated to alpha shapes. The supposed applications mentioned by Mwtoews above gave me some pause, but that's not the same as a reference explaining this concept. So, unless someone can show me something amazing (like a definition of what this even is), I'm saying delete per WP:FRINGE/PS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to concave set. The article makes it look like there is a consistent concept here, where there is none. Different authors have used the phrase "concave hull" to mean different inconsistent things; for instance, the two references with "concave hull" in their title are not about the same construction. None of these is widely accepted as a standard meaning of the phrase. There is room for articles on individual well-defined constructions that attempt to capture the shape of a non-convex point set (e.g. alpha-shapes) but "concave hull" is the wrong name and the article is entirely focused on the wrong notion that there is a common ideal that all these different constructions are trying to capture. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly defined and non-notable concept, with few cites on Google Scholar. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are two definitions from the sources provided by Mwtoews above:

"The concave hull of a geometry represents a possibly concave geometry that encloses all geometries within the set."[6]
"For a finite set of input points P, the algorithm produces a simple, possibly non-convex polygon that contains all the points in P and is contained within and possibly equal to the convex hull."[7]

The latter appears to be defining the term "“characteristic shapes” or simply χ (chi) shapes".

Would translating those into set notation constitute original research?

--50.53.36.23 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those defines the "concave hull." -- 120.23.23.27 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concave hulls are not unique. There is a family of hulls indexed by a parameter. See the "threshold" parameter here. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have asked two editors who have recently worked on Concave hull to comment or vote: Kku, JohnBlackburne. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear community members. Would it be in vain to humbly ask, why you should be believing in the relevance of a concept that is in everyday use in GISs and by GIS professionals worldwide while WP is ailing (and quite painfully, I might say) from dozens of one-liners, hundreds of articles poisoned with marketing and advertising lingo and garbled personal ideas. Suffice it to say that D.Lazard started his rally against the article while I was in the first minutes of article creation (you realize that the original complaint about only one reference (and the entirely void observation that "scholar google" wouldn't be capable of producing any additional hints) still serves as the beacon of the argument. I have rarely noticed that any unreferenced half-baked idea in enWP has been attacked right after creation in such an unreflected manner. Fellow citizens: In a WP world where the bazillionth article on some version of run-of-the mill software is evolving unfettered, while a computational geometry heuristic ( - I grant you that - ) that might be new to some but is of practical relevance to countless others is attacked by individuals who overall do not appear to be involved in the daily praxis it should be a legitimate question whether you are not wasting your energy on something that might only be in need of a better name. Keep -- Kku 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit history shows that the article was PRODed less than two hours after creation. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kku: I would be happy to reverse my delete vote if you could provide both a clear definition of the concept of a concave hull and two reliable sources (such as selective peer-reviewed journals) that discuss the concept you define. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is for verifiable, reliable sources. Peer-review is nice, but not necessary. Anyway, the article already references Duckham, et al, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Pattern Recognition. A free preprint version is here. NB: They use the term characteristic shape. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said "such as." As for this paper, while (unlike some of the other references) it is coherent, the term "concave hull" does not appear in it at all. Once again, can you provide a definition of the term "concave hull" and two reliable sources that discuss the construction so-defined? --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article name can be changed and articles can accommodate name variants through redirects. The exact article name is almost irrelevant to the deletion discussion. Please say whether the definition of characteristic shape in Duckham, et al, meets your standards for a definition. Can you understand the definition? --50.53.38.50 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the sources don't even agree on the same definition, then they can't be talking about the same subject, and it doesn't pass the GNG, done deal. As far as Kku's comments go, whether or not this concept - and do YOU have a definition? - is of practical relevance to "countless others" doesn't matter worth a diddly. It can keep on being of as much relevance to them as it was a year ago. It just doesn't get to have a Wikipedia article about it, that's all. Nha Trang 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite wikilaw saying that sources have to be in perfect agreement. Articles commonly say that sources disagree:

"There is no scholarly agreement on which are the most common motivations for war."(War)
"Sources disagree on whether North Vietnam played a direct role in aiding and organizing South Vietnamese rebels prior to 1960."(Vietnam War)

--50.53.38.50 (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the sources says that the problem is to find a polygon enclosing all points, which is a compromise between minimizing the perimeter and minimizing the area. Translated into mathematics, this means minimizing some function of the perimeter and the area. This opens two problems: 1/ Find an efficient algorithm for this optimization problem, hopefully independent of the choice of the compromise function. 2/ Determine the best compromise for the applications. This may depend on the application, and, at this level, is not a mathematical problem. None problem has been clearly addressed in the sources: the chosen compromise function, if any, is not even clearly described in the introductions, and there is no claim that the algorithms optimize something. IMO, these two problems are still open and could be a subject for a Ph.D. An open Ph.D. subject is certainly not a topic for a Wikipedia article. D.Lazard (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable way to set up a research problem, but Duckman, et al, say "There is no “correct” characteristic shape." (p. 2)

Here is a formalization based on this sentence from Duckman, et al: "For a finite set of input points P, the algorithm produces a simple, possibly non-convex polygon that contains all the points in P and is contained within and possibly equal to the convex hull." (p. 2)

Given a set of points P in the plane, a characteristic shape is any simply connected polygon S that contains P and is a subset of the convex hull H. Thus:

$P\subset S\subset H$

An additional constraint can specify that the vertices of S be in P (Do Duckman, et al, implicitly assume this?). This definition does not specify the length parameter that Duckman, et al, describe: "Changing the length parameter produces one of a finite family of totally ordered characteristic shapes, ranging from the convex hull at one extreme to a uniquely defined simple polygon with minimal area at the other extreme." (p. 30) Can you suggest a way to do that?

Does such a formalization constitute original research?

--50.53.55.68 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In AfD, the main questions to answer are: is the topic notable and is the article improvable? Whether there is a precise, unique definition or solid mathematical foundations is irrelevant. In the area of sources, there are the primary papers by Moreira, et al, Park, et al, and Xu, et al. There are other papers on shape reconstruction from point clouds, such as Duckham, et al and the alpha shape literature, but they aren't specifically on concave hulls and as far as I can tell, don't mention concavity as the crucial concept. There are also many heuristic implementations in GIS systems, databases like Oracle, and statistical systems like R. It is clear that the topic exists, but what we don't have are reliable secondary sources describing and comparing the various heuristics and their relative importance and impact. The introductory sections of the three papers have some secondary content, but not enough to build a neutral article on this subject. It seems it is WP:TOOSOON for this topic to have proper reviews and surveys written. The topic fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I just hate deleting verifiable material and there is some in this subject, but I can't see any good targets on WP. When a shape reconstruction article is written, this topic could be a part of it, along with alpha shape and visual hull. But I must reluctantly recommend deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan Bera[edit]

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

Contested PROD, PROD rationale was: "BLP with not a single reliable source, cited sources are message boards, self-published, and/or don't mention this person." Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources means notability is not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. Google turns up mainly social media sites and fora. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and there is no indication of importance, even it appears to be self-promotion. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant to have a wikipedia article. Run-of-the-millWP:MILL Athachil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College West[edit]

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

Non-notable Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a governmental subdivison so WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply. And too early to know if this Business improvement district will be significant enough to be notable. As yet no significant coverage. - Takeaway (talk) 23:15, 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. Secret ^account 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Pan[edit]

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

Non notable author. Her one book is in only 127 libraries a/c worldcat. Ref 1 is not by itself a reliable source for notability, . The rest is a mention, or things she wrote herself. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Already cited are Kirkus and USA Today (which, though it's only a couple sentences, isn't nothing). Here are a few more: The Hairpin, refinery29, Gentwenty, literallydarling, Metro. All of these contribute to notability for the book more than Pan, but there's the complicating factor (of where the notability is) in that she has written for some relatively well known publications, too. Probably a weak delete at this point, but I'll wait to see if anything else pops up. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I just looked at those links Rhodo posted, and they do talk about Pan enough to make a pass: if they were reliable sources. What makes them that, other than Metro? I'd like to see an interview like that from serious media: a major regional newspaper, a network, something like that, not just from literary blog sites. Give me that and I'll flip my vote fast. Nha Trang 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zane Pilzer[edit]

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

The notability of this subject may be debatable, but what is unquestionable is the blantant soap-boxing in this article created by single-purpose accounts Rbilbray (talk · contribs) and KathyEarnshaw99 (talk · contribs). Also note there's a connection between this one and AfD/Rick Lindquist through this company Zane Benefits. bender235 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There do seem to be sufficient sources to establish notability. The article content is problematic, but not to the extent that WP:BLOWITUP would need to be applied. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article on me (Paul Zane Pilzer) is being “considered for deletion” but I am unclear for what reasons. The article contains 58 citations to published articles about me in The New York Times, The Wall St. Journal and other credible, third-party sources over 30 of my public service, writing career and personal life. I like Wikipedia very much as an excellent resource for credible, sourced information and I want to insure that any article mentioning me is accurate and in complete accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

Could someone give me an example of something in this article that justifies it being "considered for deletion" and how it should be corrected? I will then do my best to see that such an example and any other such non-conforming examples are deleted or corrected.

Thank you. Paul Zane Pilzer

Strong keep - Are you kidding? Quote from the article: New York Times best-selling author . . . has been profiled in 100 publications including on the front page of The Wall Street Journal." That's more than enough notability for an article in my opinion. For the record, I don't know the man or have any connection to him. 5Q5 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: The problem writing appears to be in the "Economic viewpoints" section and I have flagged it with "Editorial" and "Tone" flags. A deletion nomination was extreme and not warranted in my opinion when other options existed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. 5Q5 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being written by a single purpose account is not a reason to delete, and soapboxing is a reason to prune it back, but not delete. The person has been written about in several independent works, and so passes the general notability criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 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. neither of the keeps provide evidence for meeting WP:CORP and this been relisted three times. Secret ^account 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picreel[edit]

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

No real indication why subject is important. Being mentioned as one of the innovative companies by seedcamp doesn't make subject to notable. Not even a single third party source that mentions company and makes it notable. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 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!*} 02:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are 3rd party refs that mention the company, but they are only incidental mentions of 1 sentence or less (entrepreneur.com and conversionxl.com). The other refs do not meet the standard of RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:21, 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, → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is a result of seedcamp, that selects only 30 companies in a year. Did anyone really attempted hard to find third party references. The Company marginally passes notability with its mentions in reliable sources. Its will really be harsh to mark this page for deletion. My final decision will be keep.Ireneshih (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, digging hard into search engine, the company marginally passes notability. I am changing my vote to weak keep.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources you found would you say demonstrate significant coverage of the software?Dialectric (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raktima Mukerjee[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP, I do not believe that coming in 12th (out of 32) on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2005 satisfies criterion 9 of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator has explained, this person does not meet notability criteria. No significant coverages in reliable source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:27, 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Tole[edit]

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

I just put this as a prod then I noticed it technically has refs as it goes to YouTube, I think either this should have more reliable refs or a deletion. (Overall it seems to be a original research page.) Wgolf (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like completely original research to me, a quick search didn't turn up anything. 107.194.77.23 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Three of the albums listed were by the group he was in; only one album is his own. Even then, Simple Life Soul isn't "a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Tole hasn't won any major awards, or done anything else to pass muster. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches turned up nothing, I mean nothing, that could pass muster as independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources as per the musician's notability guidelines and the general notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPURS (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND - no recordings released in their name, Googling Spurs Arcuragi Hartley (to siphon out many non-music related references but should find articles on the band) finds nothing indicating import. Article is sourced to an event listing, a streaming service listing, and an article that does not mention the band. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:12, 1 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}}.

Love this band. It's a new project by Adam Arcuragi, was wondering where to find them. So excited about this!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddredd (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band spam. no albums. article even says "The band is set to release their debut studio album, in Spring of 2015" so we're still a year away from maybe having a debut album appear (WP:CRYSTAL). getting lucky once and being mentioned in a bbc web article does not make an otherwise obscure entity encyclopedia-worthy.Cramyourspam (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please admins watch this discussion for removals of DELETE comments, like this one by IP 174.127.6.10. be alert for WP:SOCK too. i wonder if the IP which removed my delete is related to the user Reddredd who removed the AfD tag from the band's article (a bot restored it). thanks all Cramyourspam (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added more reliable information, related articles and references, as trying to build out this article effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrieRacket (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song "Cobra Tie" that was released on the charity album "Songs After Sandy" is a SPURS song, they listed as Adam Arcuragi initially, but on the physical release copies of the album, it is "SPURS, feat. Adam Arcuragi" please see the Last.fm page reference, wherein this is listen correctly. "Cobra Tie" is also on the upcoming album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrieRacket (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i believe there's WP:SOCK or WP:MEATPUPPET going on. i believe users BrieRacket and Reddredd and IP 174.127.6.10 are connected and that there is COI at work. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should be a SECOND delete nomination, actually. we can see that user Reddredd blanked a previous AfD for this article. must mention to User:NatGertler who did the earlier AfD. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, it is still the same deleteion nomination. Deletion of the template does not stop the AFD; generally, as in this case, a bot just puts the template back. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. There's very little coverage, and no albums at all. Hopefully it can be found somewhere, but I didn't even see a reliable source for the members of the band; all I see are references to Adam Arcuragi. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:32, 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. Secret ^account 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roopesh Peethambaran[edit]

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

A director with only 1 film so far-and working on his 2nd. Too soon, maybe someday-but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 23 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 10:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I do think that a redirect to Theevram (the only film he has directed) might be a good idea also so the page does not go away when he has enough time to deserve his own page. Wgolf (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete and redirect to Theevram. I found two reliable sources ([8], [9]), but the combined coverage is short of meeting WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be too soon as well as lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novelist (rapper)[edit]

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

A rapper that falls under too soon, only link on here goes to the page novelist as well. No need for a page at least yet Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article as Novelist currently meets the following criteria from WP:MUSBIO

1. He has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent. Including Resident Advisor, Fact (UK magazine), Mixmag, Complex (magazine) and The Independent

8. Has been nominated for a major music award - the MOBO awards recieve extensive mainstream coverage in the UK. The ceremony is broadcast live on ITV and the nominations have already been covered by the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, Fact ect

11. his music has received national rotation in the UK on BBC Radio 1Xtra and Rinse FM

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network multiple times. BBC Radio 1Xtra dedicated substantial airtime to Novelist in a documentary about grime broadcast in 2013 and he has also recorded multiple guest set for the station.

I also think a strong argument can be made under 7. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city." for his current prominence in the London grime scene. Arials101 (talk) 20:32, 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 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlhard (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Received sufficient media coverage and he's on the next episode of Channel 4's new series, Four to the Floor. Plus not every grime artist gets nominated for a MOBO! --DJ UnBa lanced 20:21, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sunday Night Movie[edit]

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

Unsourced list of films with nothing more in common than the timeslot for airing. The links itself are often not about the movie. The Banner talk 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by NBC Common made-for-TV block that's well in the rear-view now; could never be comprehensive or well-sourced unless every week the movie aired was sourced, and going back to 1980? No way. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it started and ended as a one off fill in show, these movies were a staple of weekly programming through the 1980s and 1990s. It was something the NBC programming executives could pull out of the hat to fill a 2 hour block. Custom movies were produced and top box office movies were purchased. I sourced a list of movies and the ratings. There were at least four annual ratings where this "series" was in the top 30. Folks, that is significant. It would be irresponsible to delete an article on something that significant. Trackinfo (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not with a random context-less list of films and ratings which are impossible to quantify (and are confined to one era; the 2000's, when film ratings for all networks nosedived and just before NBC decided that Sunday Night Football would do a lot better). I understand the Sunday network movies did well for three decades, but in this form the article needs more work and a redirect to the 'list of article' mentioning the network's film brandings is more appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that this article needs more work. I found some additional information to base that work on. There is plenty more to google. At the moment, here, we are discussing the article's mere survival as a subject for wikipedia. I expressed my opinion: A top 30 Nationally rated American television show from the 80s is not something that deserves to be deleted. WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. That answers the question for this discussion. Beyond that, yes there should be improvement to the article, a discussion about the television ratings plummeting in the 2000s is valid here. The demise of the movie in favor of NBCs long sought opportunity to air football is valid. We could also discuss long form entertainment (2 hour blocks of programming, instead of half hours) and the creativity of programming executive decisions that lead to this. There is a lot that could be said to make this article better. Trackinfo (talk) 21:47, 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 10:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep television history. and rival network's sunday night movie is listed Cramyourspam (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Arora[edit]

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

President of the above chain of preschools. The same lack of notability, plus extensive promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. The person hasn't received any significant coverage for his work. Harsh (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG and Fails WP:BIO .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn) - non-admin closure. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Gerät[edit]

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

Article is a duplicate of Battle of the Beams#Y-Gerät. It contains no information not already contained in the main article. This article could be made a redirect to the section linked above with no loss to the project. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment a "Redirect" is not a "Deletion", if that is the contention of DieSwartzPunkt then this request should be speedily closed and a merge request put forward on the talk page of the articles concerned because there is a good argument to be made that far from merging the two articles Y-Gerät should be expanded. -- PBS (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I said that a redirect could be created as a possible alternative to deletion. As things stand, the article can be deleted (completely) without loss as the article contains nothing not contained in Battle of the Beams#Y-Gerät. I do note that both of the other beam systems discussed have their own redirects which redirect to the Battle of the Beams (Knickebein did not redirect to the section but I've fixed that). This might suggest that a simple redirect may be more appropriate. What do other's think? I note that PBS has previously objected to a redirect on the spurious grounds that a redirect cannot be made to an article section (Not correct - it can. I just did it).

PBS's suggestion of a merge request is not relevant, because there is nothing unique in the article to merge. In fact Battle of the Beams#Y-Gerät contains far more information and detail than the so called "Main article". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I made that assertion are you sure that redirects to sections were available? If not then Please strike you sentence that starts "I note..." -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it may be appropriate to merge the information the other way. Either which way as you are no longer talking about deletion the appropriate place to discuss this issue is on the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Do not put comments in the middle of other users comments - Moved to correct place.] Merging the other way is not really appropriate. There is not really enough material to justify breaking off the subject into its own article. Someone will only propose that it be merged into Battle of the Beams so we will be back to square one. What is so different about this beam system that you feel in needs its own article when X-Gerät and Knickebein work perfectly well as redirects unchallenged? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you moved my comment you must have read it. Why have you not struck out your allegation? -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a valid point. The ability to redirect to sections within articles, has been available for (certainly) well over 10 years (though there was a time when it was more complex than just using the '#' delimiter). The ability to link to sub-sections (not the case here) is more recent. But if you really want me to strike it, then I will - but only because it is a complete side issue. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have just done a side by side comparison of the article and the section in Battle of the Beams. There is nothing in this article that is not in Battle of the Beams. This is therefore not the " Main article" on this subject and can be deleted. –LiveRail < Talk >
The are alternatives to deletion: The article could be made a redirect or the article could be expanded. Either way that the content is similar at the moment is not a reason to delete it. The question to ask is the subject notable not is the current content substantial enough? -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are and

Done. Did you not read the bit below before you said this?

AFAICT, the section in Battle of the Beams contains more or less everything that needs to be said on the subject without making the article 'clunky' or too technical. As it stands, there is certainly not enough material to hive off into a separate article and I would oppose doing so. A redirect is the way to go here. –LiveRail < Talk > 17:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that this has been closed and resolved. Why are we still discussing it here? –LiveRail < Talk > 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn In the light of the above. I have withdrawn the AfD for this article. In view of the lack of unique content, and the fact that the other two beam systems are redirects, I have turned this article into a redirect to Battle of the Beams#Y-Gerät which contains more information anyway (and is thus consistent). There is no necessity for a merge proposal as the article contains nothing not already in the redirect destination. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: This AfD can be closed.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 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 Withdrawn by the nominator in absence of any opposing verdict. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCH Software[edit]

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

Hi. I motion the article to be deleted for the following reasons:

It fails to establish its notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability (company) by providing evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I used both Google and Bing but the only direct (i.e. not circumstantial) secondary source I could find was this: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/NCH-Software-Reviews-E296596.htm
It chiefly consists of one large product list section, violating WP:NOTCATALOG. The only other sections are "References", "External links" and "Criticism". The latter extensively uses self-published sources and potentially unreliable sources; I feel it is a feeble attempt in bombardment than to establish notability.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are three sources I found about the subject:
1. May, Scott (2011-06-28). "NCH Software offers fantastic, affordable apps". Columbia Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30.
  According to the article, "Scott A. May is a local computer consultant and has been writing PC Info since 1989." PC Info is a technology column published by the Columbia Daily Tribune.
2. Fernandez, Edgardo (2014-07-25). "NCH Software: Los mejores desarrolladores de herramientas" [NCH Software: The Best of Developer Tools]. NeoTeo (ABC). Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  This article begins with the following paragraphs:
  En esta nueva sección hablaremos de las mejores empresas de desarrollo de aplicaciones, centrándonos en sus servicios no comerciales. En este estreno hablaremos de NCH Software una empresa que desde Canberra nos ha ofrecido muy buenas aplicaciones.
  Destacaremos sus herramientas más populares, su aplicación destacable y por supuesto, hablaremos un poco de la historia de la compañía.
  La Historia de NCH Software
  NCH Software fue fundada en el año 1993 en Canberra, Australia y en el año 2008 abre su oficina en Colorado Estados Unidos de Norte América.
  The article then discusses four of NCH Software's products: WavePad, Prism, Express Invoice, and Zulu.
  NeoTeo is published by the Spanish newspaper ABC. A NeoTeo article was republished at http://www.abc.es/20120202/tecnologia/abci-juegos-machine-201202020939.html and the ABC.es logo is on each page of NeoTeo.
  According to https://www.facebook.com/NeoTeo/info, "NeoTeo es una revista online sobre Tecnología" (NeoTeo is an online magazine about technology).
  See more articles from journalist Edgardo Fernandez at http://www.neoteo.com/author/edgardo-fernandez/.
3. Adkoli, Jayashree (2009-07-01). "NCH Software Launches its Latest IVM Interactive Telephone System". TMCnet. Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30.
  The article's first paragraph says, "NCH Software, a provider of audio, video, business, and telephony/VoIP tools and utilities, announced the release of its latest ‘IVM’, an interactive telephone system that has simplified interactive voice response (IVR)."
  This article provides detailed coverage about NCH Software's IVM product.
  According to http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/columnists/columnist.aspx?id=100118&nm=Jayashree%20Adkoli, "Jayashree Adkoli is a professional freelance writer covering technology."
  According to http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/tmchome.htm, TMC is an "educational and news resource in the communications and technology fields - including VoIP, IP communications, telecom, contact centers, and CRM" that reaches in "excess of 3.5 million readers worldwide each month".
  http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/columnists/ has a list of TMCnet's editors and contributors. The editorial staff indicates that the source has received the editorial oversight necessary to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NCH Software to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article currently has twenty entries under references, the article lists 62 products, and the topic has been in business since 1993, which is almost pre-internet, which shows great longevity. A cautionary note is that the topic is not listed at investing.businessweek.com. As indicated by WP:BEFORE, I used the Find sources template to look at Google books, and found promising hits. Here is one, where the quote is from the snippet:

Victor C. X. Wang (31 May 2014). Handbook of Research on Education and Technology in a Changing Society. IGI Global. pp. 383–384. ISBN 978-1-4666-6047-2. Retrieved 2014-10-03. Available for Windows, Mac, iPhone, and iPads, this recording software is more complex than the previously ...

Concerns about individual sections of the article are matters of ordinary editing. Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: Cunard's and Unscintillating's arguments for WP:Notability are pretty convincing. Also the WP:NOTCATALOG argument is weak, I quote the policy "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention..." in no way is this the case with the article. WP:SPS, Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, WP:Bombardment arguments: does not affect notability, as that has already been demonstrated; it merely means the article could be improved. Also the criticisms section makes the article especially notable, as it proves ample warnings. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:14, 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. Secret ^account 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Scalercio[edit]

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with reason "notable college coach", yet career shows otherwise. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep college football head coaches are normally kept as they almost always are found to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. See essay at WP:CFBCOACH.--Paul McDonald (talk)
Comment. I have not had a chance to evaluate yet, and it's not much, but a preliminary search at newslibrary.com does turn up some significant coverage of Sclaercio, including (1) "Allen's Road to Success Began With Scalercio", The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA) - January 31, 1996, (2) "At SSU, Where's the Beef? Scalercio Looking for Big Linemen", The Press Democrat, April 18, 1995. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As Paul McDonald pointed out Mr.Scalercio meets the guidelines as specified under WP:CFBCOACH. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: Please note that WP:CFBCOACH is not a Wikipedia notability guideline; it is an essay written by one or more regular CFB editors and reflects their opinion of how college coaches should be treated for notability purposes. The notability guidelines which apply to college football coaches are the specific guideline of WP:NCOLLATH and the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. In absence of a major college award or record, coaches generally require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for inclusion. The vast majority of Division I FBS head coaches will meet this standard, but the percentage falls with the size and prominence of the program. Division II and III head coaches are by no means automatic "passes" for inclusion. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 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 05:54, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Standing consensus at AfD, supported by the college football project, is that all collegiate head football coaches are presumed notable. I agree. There are sufficient sources out there for a GNG pass in every case between hiring, game-related coverage, and firing stories... Carrite (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Head's Up - @Carrite: The standing consensus at WP:CFB and WP:CBB is that all Division I head coaches in football and men's basketball are presumed to be notable. That presumption does not apply to head coaches in Division II, Division III, or NAIA tier programs, nor does it apply to Division I coaches in sports other than football and men's basketball. There is a vocal minority, however, who have advocated the position that all college football head coaches should be presumed notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 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 Speedy keep. Joke nomination. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Richard Nixon[edit]

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

Let's try to forget the dark days of republican rule.--Bigger Userz (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete--Bigger Userz (talk) 14:52, 9 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 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:10, 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Santa Cruz[edit]

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with no reasoning. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problem, of course, is that he has been the subject of coverage in myriad reliable sources and some of the games he's coached have been televised on CBS. But a lot of that coverage amounts to "coach Victor Santa Cruz said" at the end of a quote about a particular game. That's not significant coverage. The other issue is that a lot of the coverage is from a very small geographic region centred around the university where he works. I don't think there's enough to get him over the line just yet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment @GauchoDude: Did you notify the article's creator regarding this AfD? If not, please do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head college football coaches are normally found to have surpassed WP:GNG per essay at WP:CFBCOACH, especially those who have won a national championship at any level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, I don't spent all that much time in sports AFDs. To what extent is that an accepted community consensus? Can you point to a couple of related outcomes? Gotta say, the extent to which it has been cited in discussions suggests fairly broad acceptance (without detailed analysis). St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have certainly argued against it. I normally point to WP:CFBWEST to show a period where a large block of head coaches were sent to AFD basically all at once and how after time they were brought back.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't had a chance to evaluate, as payment is required to view the actual articles, but a search of newslibrary.com does turn up some seemingly significant coverage of Santa Cruz, including (1) "APU's Santa Cruz is not disheartened", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 23, 2009; (2) "Cougars coach Santa Cruz won't let team quit", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 16, 2009; (3) "Santa Cruz groomed to be a head coach", North County Times, September 1, 2006; (4) "Santa Cruz finds home 3,000 miles from Vista", The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 1, 1993. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 23 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 05:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure that we've seen a consistent consensus to keep all lower-division college head coaches, but given the sourcing presented here and his 2013 Victory Bowl win, I think enough has been presented to establish notability for this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wasn't convinced the OUTCOMES arguments were strong enough on their own. But in combination with the sources presented, the subject probably just gets over the line for me. Certainly not the strongest keep but I can't find a particularly strong argument for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not endorse a presumption of notability for college sports head coaches below the Division I level, nor for Division I coaches for sports other than football and men's basketball, who have demonstrated that they satisfy WP:GNG in the overwhelming majority of AfD cases. That having been said, I am endorsing the "keep" arguments per the WP:GNG general notability guidelines made by Cbl62, Arxiloxos and Stalwart above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 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. Secret ^account 19:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gill[edit]

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:BASEBALL/N after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed as "AFD if you wish" with no additional information added to article. GauchoDude (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASEBALL/N is meaningless here, unless we're ready to say coaches like Augie Garrido, Mike Martin, and Tim Corbin aren't notable because they didn't play in the MLB. The real issue, for me, is whether the article satisfies WP:NCOLLATH. In my opinion, it doesn't, but it's not far off. Gill played and coached in the College World Series; has coached Team USA; has assisted at multiple major programs; has been a head coach for six seasons in a top-10 conference. Does that satisfy the standard of "gained national media attention as an individual"? In baseball, probably not, especially since only a couple secondary-coverage sources come up for <"Jason Gill" lmu baseball>. That said, were he to make an NCAA Tournament, win the conference, or move to another D1 within the next year or two (distinct possibilities), that'd generate the national media coverage to give him notability. So basically, if I had to say keep or delete at this moment, I'd say delete, because of the lack of an NCAAT appearance or move between D1's. But I'm much more hesitant than GauchoDude. Kithira (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion is that Division I head baseball coaches who have served since 2000 are notable, with national coverage of D-I baseball programs through several outlets beginning around that time. Gill has coverage in several of these, a sampling of which are cited as references in the article. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Billcasey as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:23, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. College baseball does not receive the sort of media coverage that basketball and football receive. There is nothing in the guidelines that says a coach is notable because he is division 1... likewise coaching in the college world series by itself doesnt confer notability. There just isn't enough coverage of him in reliable sources to satify GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being a division 1 coach doesn't mean you're automatically notable. NSPORT says to apply the same standards to coaches and players and he's done nothing exceptional to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to support college baseball head coaches from D1 and even D2. Alex (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Division 1 baseball coach is not automatically notable and he doesn't appear to have the significant independent non-routine coverage needed for GNG. Taking a team once to the NCAA tournament is not enough. Doesn't meet the notability criteria for college athletes/coaches.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Rawal[edit]

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

This actually looks like a hoax based off of the years of the awards. Also only 2 films, way too soon. Wgolf (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Tried Googling, but nothing came up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:10, 22 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 06:06, 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 ♔ 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. Harsh (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Boagni[edit]

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

Player with no professional appearances, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed for "played for USA basketball team", however he has not appeared for the senior national team. GauchoDude (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He did played professionally, for ~10 years in New Zealand, and was a three-time New Zealand National Basketball League "Most Outstanding Forward/Center" ([10]). Here is a brief write-up of him as a collegiate athlete in the New York Times, this and this are two feature articles about him in college in the Los Angeles Times, and here is a Salina Journal article about him. All of those references took me 5 minutes to find. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My error on him not playing after college. If the NBL (NZ, not Aus) was professional at the time he played, then that would satisfy. "The New Zealand National Basketball League began in 1982 in response to a need for consistent and quality competition on a semi-professional basis ..." is mentioned here, which is a slight cause for concern. GNG does, however, supersede and if it's found that he's notable through those means, then you can certainly add those sources to his article. GauchoDude (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not passionate about the player, so I may or may not get around to adding the references. Regardless of whether I do, he is still notable and a cursory WP:BEFORE would have found that. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:24, 23 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 05:56, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jrcla's comment and linked sources above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dirtlawyer1, i.e. also per Jrcla's comment and linked sources above. --do ncr am 08:09, 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 both. Deor (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Career Wrestlers[edit]

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

Non-notable recent creation. Article is full of what will be. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a sub-page of the first with no relevance outside of it:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both My search found no significant independent coverage of this organization or its rules. Appears to have held 1 event a year ago and that's it.Mdtemp (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Articles are about a wrestling organization that appears to have held one event and the rules that it uses. They fail both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both fail WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volodymyr Kudryavtsev[edit]

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

Highly promotional and completely unsourced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the awards quoted, he is definitely notable. GerardM (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs plenty of work, but the individual seems notable enough in terms of awards and recognition. Bondegezou (talk) 20:19, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being "promotional" in tone is an editing matter. Being largely unsourced is an editing matter. Clearly a notable Ukrainian poet and lyricist. Lengthy article exists in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —innotata 23:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the awards and recognition he has received, the subject clearly is notable. The article is not bad enough it needs to be deleted, per the others commenting above. —innotata 01:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William HL Lau[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. obviously a pundit. all sources point to his position as president of singapore institute of planners an sometimes a quote. no reliable sources for anything remotely biographical Ohc ^¡digame! 02:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While I know nothing about Singapore, and nothing about this topic, the guy seems to appear in what I think (unless someone knows better) are reliable sources. Admittedly, much of this article probably can't be supported by reliable sources -- and I'd propose that it be trimmed back to what can be supported -- but overall he strikes me as likely notable enough, if a bit marginal, once it's trimmed back.TheOther Bob 03:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 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 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletetypical promotional article for minor figures. I note that listing publications in a table is not accepted WP style, and seems to be characteristic of a particular group of promotional editors. Of course, others might naively copy it without realizing. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Needs cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. Maybe just add his name as a member/leader in one of the organizations, such as Singapore Institute of Planners, if anyone care to write it, of which he is a former president. Handful of minor press comments in a field that typically does not get much press may get over the WP:GNG bar... —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and WP:TNT. Has written some newspaper articles, one TV appearance. Promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alden, Esq[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-written biography, no clear notability claim. Witty lama 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence the subject passes general notability or my standards for lawyers. I've never heard of this run of the mill person. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a work in progress, I have edited to included links to additional Wikipedia articles and also introduced a link from a related article. I am open to other suggestions for editing. The subject of the article is notable in regards to being a best-selling author and in terms of of receiving recent awards. DirectKnowledge (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Being the CEO of one of America's 5000 fastest growing companies, as provided by one source does not confer notability; because if we were to assume that 5000 otherwise non-notable companies become notable by their inclusion, notability is not contagious and employees (even officers) do not inherit notability from their employers - similar to the concept that the US Army is notable, not every officer is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs the subject is the founder of the company, the notability claim is not exactly akin to the example given above. Also, in regards to your comment that the subject fails WP:GNG, the subject has also been recognized by other leading news sources such as the Boston Business Journal.DirectKnowledge (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as blatant promotionalism ("Esq"!!!!) Quis separabit? 19:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Values Modes[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN BY NOM. Addt'l references noted. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one, so posting here for a consensus. Some of the references do not mention Value Modes at all. At best, this might be appropriate to merge into Geodemographic segmentation or one of the links is See Also section? —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator left comments on my talk page: User_talk:Gaff#Values_Modes for review. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page, and have already written an explanation on Gaff's Talk page of why I believe the piece is worthy of remaining (see above). I am new to Wikipedia so apologies if I haven't followed etiquette at any point! As I write on the page itself, the tool has been in use for 40 years, and is deployed by Cultural Dynamics. It is similar to tools like ACORN and MOSAIC (both mentioned within my piece, both of which feature on Wikipedia) in that it was initially developed commercially, but has increasing usage in social research, political communications, policy development, social marketing, etc. As class affiliations become less of a factor in psephology and other forms of behaviour change research, models like Values Modes are becoming more and more common. As some of the articles cited on the VM page show, political analysis is increasingly using tools such as VM instead of traditional demographic-led methodologies. Clarkechris66 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the researchers who initially developed the tool have been using VM for some time, it hasn't completely been 'brought online', so to speak, and while there are a number of useful explanations of the methodology on the internet, there is no one single definitive place where academics, local authorities and other potential users of the tool can learn about how it works (short of wading through some fairy dense academic papers). My decision to create a Wikipedia space was influenced by the feeling that Values Modes is something fairly widely used but not especially well-known, and thus a good subject for a Wikipedia article. The New Local Government Network put VM at the centre of the 2011 behaviour change strategy, which I hope provides some validation that it is a methodology taken seriously by big organisations. Given that more and more local authorities are now using VM, it seems like something it would be useful for ordinary residents, internet users and other lay people to understand better. In my view this means it fits within the core Wikipedia vision of a world with better-democratised information, and should not be deleted. Clarkechris66 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A final disclosure: I am a freelance social researcher and have used VM in a professional capacity in the past. However, I have no commercial stake in Cultural Dynamics, and have aimed to keep the article as neutral as possible (despite personally being an enthusiast of it). Clarkechris66 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you want Mosaic (geodemography), since Mosiac is a disambig page.—Gaff ^ταλκ 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - amended Clarkechris66 (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOM. Addt'l references noted. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Dinç[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an anonymous editor, who left the following rationale at WT:AFD. Relevant notability criteria would include WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NHOOPS, for the subject's time as a college and professional player, respectively. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This came up as the second nomination, but I cannot find the first. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be deleted, because it is of no relevance. The person does not meet the notability criteria for basketball. He was for a very short time with a TBL-team (which is not listed in the criteria-leagues), but did not play at all. The article is not up to date. Also some links are broken. The first part about his "Early Life" is not based on facts. He never played for the Turkish national team. Again sources are missing. So I propose to delete the article.193.134.132.20 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete - I confirmed that he appeared briefly in one Turkish Basketball League game, accumulating no stats. In a search for evidence he meets GNG, I saw a little US coverage based on his nomad-like college basketball movement, but nothing beyond what I'd see as WP:ROUTINE. I was the person who removed the PROD and my main concern was that we should not delete this article without a discussion as he played at a major college level in the Big Ten and in the TBL, which really is at the same level as the Spanish and Italian leagues that meet WP:NBASKETBALL. But after doing the research, I don't believe he is notable. Rikster2 (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rikster's comment and rationale immediately above; no need for me to expand on it. Subject fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear notable as a basketball player and fails to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted, G11. Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom Fertility & Healthcare[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:Hospital (doctor's office?)notability criteria. Two of the refs are mirrors of each other and only mention the clinic in passing. One is a company press release. The other, printed in local press, reads like a phone book entry about a place's existence. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make it Speedy? Creator has clear coi (username=article heading) and it is mostly/all promo. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:13, 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 merge to China–North Korea border. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese–Korean border fence[edit]

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

This fence does not exist. There have been various (relatively short) fences at various places at various times along the 1000 km border. Even at the key crossing point of Dandong, China, there has not been a fence of any permanence or size. The issue can be dealt with at the Chinese-North Korean border page. Jack Upland (talk) 11:26, 9 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 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may well be this topic could be better dealt with elsewhere but, "this fence does not exist" probably isn't accurate. It might not be as extensive as the article suggests but there are multiple reliable sources (1 and 2 for example) with photos of the fence. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Significant coverage in the media and as such the subject is notable. That it is not a continuous fence can not be used as an argument. The Mexico–United States barrier (one of its alternative names is "The Border Fence") is not a continuous fence either. - Takeaway (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Due to me overlooking that the nominator mentioned that there is also a China–North Korea border article (please link and highlight these things in future for clarity and ease of access), I propose to merge of these two articles under a the name China-North Korea barrier. "China-North Korea border" sounds inadequate for the content. I have seen that there are many other articles in the list Border barrier that include the word "barrier" when there is a significant amount of fencing or walls involved. - Takeaway (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge into China–North Korea border. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it but it largely overlaps that article as a topic: people interested in the border will be interested in the fence and vice-versa, the two topics are closely related. Both articles are short, even merged the article will be far shorter than many.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think we can eliminate the China-North Korea border page as suggested previously. That's a fairly important topic that could be expanded. And it's not just that the fence isn't continuous. That is a straw man argument. There have been reports of fences of 10 or 20 km on the 1000 km border. This is in contrast to the Mexico–United States barrier which apparently runs for a third of the border. Moreover, it is clear that these fences have not been permanent. Both the reports cited above relate to Dandong in China. 2 is from 2005 and shows a substantial fence (but not 4 m high). But (1 from this year shows a fence that is hardly a serious barrier at all - and this with North Korea just across the stream. This is exactly the same spot at which I took my photos in 2012, when there was no fence. See Talk:Chinese-Korean border fence. Sure, you can say that's original research. But that is rather perverse, because if I had found a fence and photographed it, it would be permitted to add it to the article. The fundamental issue is that people, including in the media, assume there must be a barrier and don't bother to verify it. This seems to be just another example of sensationalism and inaccuracy in reporting North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my point with those sources wasn't that the fence was "substantive" or "continuous" - it was to query your opening comment that the, "fence does not exist". It clearly does. It doesn't matter if it's a big fence or a little fence or a fence that China is taking more seriously than its neighbour (there are plenty of those border fences). So the question then is whether or not the fence that does exist has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Even if it has, merging it still an option. But the accuracy of the article is not a reason for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Jack Upland is right. After researching it some more by reading beyond the headlines, it is true that most Western media portrayal is more sensationalism than factual reporting. The Australian SBS report is the only one which reports anything about the extent. Others show images of big fences and fences that are being built, but the only thing we get to read is that China is "in a quick tempo" building new fences or heightening/electrifying old ones, without actually saying what the extent of all this is. It would seem that China is taking their fences serious, but going about it in a patchwork manner, building or extending them only in those stretches which are "popular" escape routes.China Post wikileaks. Yep, ~~delete~~ merge and move part of the verifiable content into China-North Korea border article until more reliable sources state that the fencing is significantly extensive. - Takeaway (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my previous comment. - Takeaway (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–North Korea border. Content about the fence can be preserved there, perhaps has a section.--Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–North Korea border, which is where it logically belongs. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess the reason I suggested deletion rather than merging is that if there was a border fence or series of fences running for hundreds of kilometres the topic would merit its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–North Korea border.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:08, 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 Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Porn Culture[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG as it has to rely on self-published sources: all citations are from their website. In the bibliography section 3/5 articles are by Gail Dines, who is a founding member of Stop Porn Culture so those are SPS again. Since Gail Dines is such a prominent factor in this organisation, perhaps it's best to cover it in her article as it doesn't stand notable independently. Pudeo ' 11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization is mentioned in The Guardian/Observer,[11] The Independent,[12] Washington Times, ThinkProgress, and several dozen academic journals. Lightbreather (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gail Dines, who does seem to be synonymous with the organization. For example, http://stoppornculture.org/press/spc-in-the-news/ is actually titled "G. Dines and SPC in the News". So even the organization itself thinks it's synonymous with her. Lightbreather doesn't give links to the mentions in her Oppose, but the ones I've seen are just that, mentions, one sentence each that say "Group Stop Porn Culture says X", and don't really go into the group itself. That's enough for a section in Gail Dines, but not really enough for a standalone article. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also mentioned in the Huffington Post [13] peterl (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's worth noting that one of those articles is an opinion by Gail Dines herself; one article in the Independent was by her as well. In this HuffPost article Stop Porn Culture is mentioned in the title, but the article itself mostly speaks about Dines: "Organised by Gail Dines, a sociologist and anti-porn campaigner..." So are those articles about Stop Porn Culture because of Dines or because they're notable independently? --Pudeo ' 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Lightbreather. Google search reveals hits to reliable sources. Tagging article as needing additional references seems more appropriate than deletion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient reliable sources to meet notability criteria (especially given those introduced above). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of discussion among references and multiple secondary sources in various locations. — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gail Dines or delete, doesn't seem that notable, but could be in the article about Gail Dines. This is pretty much Gail Dines' personal organization. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 04:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass the notability sniff test. Juno (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Independently notable organization. This AfD is rather POINT-y. No need for a merge, all organizations are usually started by someone who is a prominent spokesperson in their early years. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Lightbreather. Does not need to be merged. Some of the !votes for deletion or merge appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, disagreement with the organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 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 speedy deleted by admin Inter (A7) - non-admin close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid safdar[edit]

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

Vandalism 115ash^→(☏) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion not needed; page qualifies for speedy deletion(and deleted once already). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 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. Secret ^account 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McManus[edit]

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

Non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article only barely makes a claim of notability, and it's highly unlikely that this person meets WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source isn't enough coverage, no evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-focus. He's not notable for the things included in the article (WWA) but I feel he is notable for what he has done since, partially because of some financial troubles. But there certainly is coverage out there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

I think there's enough there. Nick, LibStar? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's sufficient to be honest Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keen to know why (combined, mind you) those wouldn't be considered significant coverage in reliable sources? There are articles specifically focused on him in national newspapers. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should say that those were just the sources I could find on the first page of Google results. Others include 6, 7, 8, 0 and 10. Granted, some of those are "gossip" type stories but when national papers think you're notable enough to note (prominently) who you're "with" and where you live, you're surely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Significant coverage in reliable sources includes [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided by those above indicate that this subject meets GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources demonstrates that this topic meets the GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it now meets the GNG but barely. Frankly up and down cycles of entertainment promotors don't seem all that notable but it would be nice if the article could reflect the references a bit better.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since even after two relistings we have only the opinions of the nominator and one other user, I'm going to make this a WP:SOFTDELETE. No prejudice against a speedy renomination should the article be restored on request. Deor (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreflective copying bias[edit]

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

This article likely fails notability tests, despite the topic getting a very minor run in a couple of online news sources. There are also conflict of interest issues here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Selective merge to List of cognitive biases. I was only able to find the one primary reference for this bias, the paper referenced in the article. Of the secondary references in the article, the Royal Society article is not independent and the other two are uncritical, simply summarizing the main results of the paper. Given that this work hasn't been subject to careful review by reliable secondary sources, the topic fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Given that the experiment results haven't been reproduced elsewhere, verifiability comes into question as well. But the assertion that this bias exists and has been subject to the paper peer review is verifiable, so it seems worth a mention in List of cognitive biases with refs verifying. Basically, it is WP:TOOSOON for this topic to develop the multiple in-depth reliable sources needed to write an unbiased article. That the article was likely written by one of the authors of the paper also raises concerns about neutrality. Without proper independent RS, I don't think we can make the article neutral. --Mark viking (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark viking. Thanks for giving this your attention. Predictably, I agree with pretty much everything you have said. The only point I would make is that I think merging into List of cognitive biases would still be giving this very preliminary research too much coverage. I would argue that to include it in the list (either as a cognitive bias or a social bias) is to imply that it is established as a 'real and distinguishable thing', which I don't think we can say at this stage. Yes, the paper has got through peer review, but this does not mean it is established a scientific fact. As you are probably well aware, the peer review process is a limited control and depending on the journal and reviewers a paper may get through on methodological rather than theoretical grounds. Really, the path toward scientific consensus starts at peer review, rather than ends at it.

In the end and I am pretty sure that this research isn't going to get traction. This is basically because their grandiose novel claim (i.e. that "networks do not propagate the analytic reasoning style required to independently arrive at correct answers") isn't justified by the data they have and is contradicted by other more established theory and data.^[1]^[2] But this is wp:nor from me. I think your points, coupled with my healthy skepticism as to what we can expect from peer review, is enough justification to leave Unreflective copying bias out of Wikipedia for the meantime. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response and you do make a good point. If the basic assertion of this paper, as would be claimed in List of cognitive biases, is likely to be controversial, then a single primary reference for verification isn't good enough. WP:PSTS indicates that primary references are OK for uncontroversial facts, but contentious matter requires independent secondary or tertiary sources. I've changed my recommendation to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
^ Smyth, L., Mavor, K. I., Platow, M. J., Grace, D. M., & Reynolds, K. J. (2013). Discipline social identification, study norms and learning approach in university students. Educational Psychology, (ahead-of-print), 1-21.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 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. Secret ^account 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concore Entertainment[edit]

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

Business does not have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to achieve notability. Sources reference the artist more than the company and notability is not inherited. Article creator and major contributors have an obvious conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 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 ♔ 02:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 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. Secret ^account 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Sarab[edit]

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

Had this as a prod, but looking this over it seems to be a more non notable case if anything. Wgolf (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to significant coverage in reliable sources can be added to the article promptly. I found nothing but concede they may exist in Farsi. Unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-looks like sock puppetery is going on also. Wgolf (talk) 15:00, 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 01:45, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you add the words 'Iranian', 'film' etc it's easier to search and the search yields results like this one or this one which at least prove his existence. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:40, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Deor (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the Pretty Back: Friendship, Family, and Finding the Perfect Lipstick.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Contains original research, no references or indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 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 01:44, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:08, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Dev Varma[edit]

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

The person's claim to fame is his wife and children, who are notable actors. Although the person belongs to a royal family, I find he has no particular claim to notability on his own. Dwaipayan (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 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 01:40, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is not inherited, so we say, but for royals it seems to be - at least if the royals (down to the minor nobility, it seems) seem to be treated as exceptions to the WP:GNG and are given inherent notability. If that's so, and every 7th duke or whatever gets a pass, why not Indian royalty? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of such a policy (that royalty is an exception to GNG). Could you please provide a link to that policy? Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Note that the main cited source in the article is a personal hobbyist website, which (a) is not a reliable source, and (b) contains only a 1-line entry for the subject. All other sources I could find are brief mentions of Verma in articles about his wife/daughters. Incidentally, Bharat Dev Verma is not himself a royal since India abolished such recognitions under the 26th amendment to its constitution (a work-in-progress I had forgotten about) So even if, arguendo, royals were inherently notable, the criterion would not be applicable. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and WP:N. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Markham, Ontario[edit]

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

Unreferenced and fails general notability. PROD was removed more than 2 years and article was instead tagged for notability. There have been no significant changes and the article is still unreferenced more than two years later. Project seems to have long term plans, but for now seems to be little but a shopping/commercial centre with no claim to notability. Meters (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is correct that the article, as written, does not make or source any particular notability for what is, when you get right down to it, just a mixed use commercial/condo-residential development of no more inherent notability than any generic residential subdivision or any generic shopping mall. This type of thing might be considered notable if you could source it well enough to get it over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source it properly, but this version is a definite delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 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 01:39, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried going for a keep because it is a huge development, the funds are there, and it's actually under construction. But I just can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG other than two newspaper articles from 2011 saying that this neighbourhood is going to be built. All other google hits are mainly real estate agent adverts and such. Delete.

The article Downtown Markham has similar problems even though the neighbourhood is much further in its completion. There is no significant coverage to warrant their article here on WP. - Takeaway (talk) 00:37, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Deor (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone's Main Event: A Tragedy at the O.K. Corral[edit]

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

None of the working sources cited refer to the title of the article or the play that the article describes. A search for the article title reveals a few results but they appear to be from 2007-2009. A phone call to a number associated with an old listing went unanswered. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 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 01:39, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary author of this article, Bill Westman, has not been active on Wikipedia since October 2, 2013. His last edit to this article was to restore the list of cast members to that when he first created the article in 2008. The article was immediately nominated for speedy deletion when User:Lifebaka prevented its early deletion. It has grown since then from 885k to 3976k. No content was added. The change in size can be attributed to sources that do not support the content, external links, categories, and stub templates. At best, the article is seriously flawed and lacking notability. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:39, 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) 22:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right Question Institute[edit]

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

This organisation doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. I have searched for in depth coverage of the organisation in independent sources but have not found anything. SmartSE (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a few minutes I found these articles: [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the links provided by Sammy 1339, the first isn't secondary ("process that we and our colleagues at the Right Question Institute have developed"); the second probably qualifies as a reliable secondary source, but one article in a local newspaper is insufficient to satisfy the GNG; the third is just an excerpt from a book by the organization's founders; and the fourth is a passing mention. I agree that without better independent sourcing this fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deor (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HolaSoyGerman[edit]

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

Minor YouTube celebrity. Diego Grez (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Examples of significant coverage in reliable sources includes [23], [24], [25], [26]. I also found this source ([27]), but its reliability is unclear. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - HolaSoyGerman is the second most subscribed YouTube personality/channel (currently) on YouTube. He's no "minor YouTube celebrity" if he has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, has nineteen million subscribers, and every one of his videos has millions of views. Andise1 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in multiple secondary sources over time in different countries in the world. — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 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 move to draftspace. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stijn Houben[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. PROD was contested based speculation about future appearances. The inadmissibility of notability based potential future appearances remains one of the strongest and longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a pity that there is no such thing as a "hold" for articles as the season for the Indian Super League will start on 12 October, in a bit over a week, which will then make this player a pro and "Wikipediable" per WP:FOOTY. - Takeaway (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a shame there isn't, as this player could very well be notable in a few days. But there's a better solution - see below. Nfitz (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Drafts Player recently signed for Indian Premier League, which starts play in less than 1 week. There's little point completely deleting article only to restore in a few weeks. Use WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH instead of Wikipedia:Waste of Time. Deleting this article only to recreate it in a few days or weeks is a waste of everyone's time. We've also seen that often the articles are rewritten from scratch losing information, and often with no restoration of the edit history. There is WP:NOHARM in simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens; the article can easily be deleted in the future. Nfitz (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent move! - Takeaway (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft namespace per the rationale of User:Nfitz above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft namespace per the rationale of User:Nfitz above. - Takeaway (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft namespace per the rationale of User:Nfitz above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may play today in the Indian Super League a fully professional league as per Delhi Dynamos take on FC Pune City.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC) He was on the substitute bench in today's game Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the team is really intent on stretching this AfD as much as they can. Next match October 19. - Takeaway (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lonsdale[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for a couple years, sourced only to the unreliable IMDB, there are some verifying mentions of this actress, so she is not a hoax, but she never seemed to get the press that the environmental activist of the same name has managed, everything I can find reliable and signficant is about the latter, not the former, and I have found no indication that the two are the same person. A redirect to That's My Boy would not be a concern as well, but if she does have independent notability I'd rather see the sources and improve the article. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She had recurring roles in TV series such as That's My Boy, Doctor Who, Come Back Mrs. Noah, and The Cedar Tree. Possible confusion with the environmentalist doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Dcfc1988 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the question isn't whether she is confused with someone we don't consider notable who has more signficant, reliable coverage, the question is whether she has enough signficant, reliable coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Do you believe she does? --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. She easily passes wp:ent - "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Dcfc1988 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you believe the article is mistaken where it describes those roles as "minor" and/or "guest" appearances. I understand entirely, and recommend that you update the article with reliable sources backing your view. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:35, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some minor roles in major shows do not meet the requirements of WP:ENT.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although she got a minor mention with the BBC about a role in the show Doctor Who. In terms of meeting the WP:GNG, she doesn't get much attention in major US newspapers, major world papers, British press except for a brief mention here in the Telegraph, or in the entertainment media. Sources seem insufficient at this point to meet the GNG requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:SOFTDELETE). Deor (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Muller[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG. Unsourced to anything but IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source. No objection to a redirect to Sesamstraat if he is mentioned there. Additional sources welcomed, sourcing is a bit tricky with one or more footballers of the last name Muller often being referred to as heroes. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 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 delete, at the request of the article creator. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FRESHMEN III[edit]

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

Not notable as a company. Fails WP:CORP. Members listed have some minor credits e.g. see credits for #willpower but none identified for the subject. No independent reliable sources identified. Cult of Green (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Guidry[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find sufficient secondary sources to meet GNG/BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim to notability is based on popularity and the sources are all web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Goldberg (social worker)[edit]

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

Another non-notable anti-cult person. This person has no inherent notability, and does not pass the GNG--the sourcing is simply not there. He published a few articles, most of which not in academically sound journals, and "books" is really just a chapter in an edited collection. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of proper sourcing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Fails to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. For what it's worth, thousands of people lobby or testify annually before the New York State Legislature, including yours truly. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only secondary source seems to be a mere mention in one book. He does not meet WP's definition of notability. BayShrimp (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a guest on the Sally Jesse Raphael show, and Geraldo, apparently as an "anti-cult expert" or "activist" does not confer notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Akkineni[edit]

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

Too soon article. Could be redirected to one of his 2 films. Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No big films to his credit. AdityapSingh (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls in WP:TOOSOON. Can be deleted. Athachil (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; looks like a test page to me, and also invoking WP:SNOW. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to buy[edit]

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

Self-proclaimed original research. Appears to be a guide suggesting what games to buy, but comes from the author's personal opinions and is not cited. Blatantly violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now per nom. This isn't an article in any real sense. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTBLOG because it looks like blog post material to me. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete as just somebody's opinion. Surely this must fall under one of the speedy criteria?! Keresaspa (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete Opinion rant.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this an AfD? No speedy delete available?--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that any of the criteria really fit here, although there ideally would be one that does. ansh666 03:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and early close per WP:SNOW, for obvious enough reasons. ansh666 03:02, 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.

[1] Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

[2] Smyth, L., Mavor, K. I., Platow, M. J., Grace, D. M., & Reynolds, K. J. (2013). Discipline social identification, study norms and learning approach in university students. Educational Psychology, (ahead-of-print), 1-21.

[1]

[2]