Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fenby[edit]

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

Withdrawn Some of his books do get reviewed, thus he is notable. Please someone close this AFD. Dream Focus 22:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only references to reliable sources that work, are just articles he wrote himself. None of his many books are notable, I seeing no reviews for them at all. Working as an editor for a newspaper or whatnot, doesn't make someone notable. Dream Focus 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the two awards aren't anything special. National Order of Merit (France) shows they created this award do to how many people were being given another award, this one lesser to it, and if you read the requirements, millions of people can easily get it for years of public service. The other award "is the most junior and most populous order of chivalry". Dream Focus 01:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the article could use some additional editing, Fenby is certainly the sort of person that ordinary Wikipedia users (like me) would like to know about.Sbabones (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is unfortunately faulty in almost every respect, but probably through no fault of the nominator - a more thorough effort at WP:BEFORE would in fact have been advisable, but I started with the probably unfair advantage of already knowing something about the subject. It probably does not help that the article on a person whose main notability is as an author and former newspaper editor and journalist instead highlights his rather less notable current career in consultancy, and depends so heavily for referencing on the subject himself.

However, I have now repaired one of the bad links in the article, to an independent reliable source which provides a significant amount of detail about parts of his newspaper career. From memory, there are almost certainly further reliable sources about his newspaper career, but most of them will be in newspapers from the 1980s and 1990s, and either offline or behind paywalls.

So far as review of his books are concerned, they are difficult to sift out from the other Google results but there are plenty of them - not just from Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews but also from the Daily Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Economist, Times Higher Education, the Literary Review, the Asian Review of Books and the Taipei Times.

And while editing a newspaper does not in itself make a person notable, it should be noted that he was both one of the founding (if subordinate) editors of The Independent (which got a lot of coverage from other news media at the time) and the first editor of The Observer after it was taken over by The Guardian.

Finally, the nominator has also shown some lack of knowledge about the British honours system - while the Order of the British Empire can indeed be described as "the most junior and most populous order of chivalry", this is mainly because the other orders of chivalry within the honours system are effectively restricted to various groups of British government employees. In terms of prestige, the class of an honour is more important than the order, with far fewer awards in the upper classes of an order than in the lower classes. So while the lower classes of the Order of the British Empire - the MBE and the OBE - do not measurable contribute to notability, the CBE - which Fenby was awarded - is a strong indicator of notability (most of the people awarded it would have met one or other of the Wikipedia criteria of notability well before getting the award) and I would regard the award of one of the higher classes - the KBE, DBE and GBE, all of which count as knighthoods (or damehoods) - as effectively guaranteeing automatic notability in Wikipedia terms. So, to finish - the article could definitely do with a rewrite and more sources, but Fenby is definitely notable. PWilkinson (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his books did get reviewed then. My mistake. AFD Withdrawn. Dream Focus 22:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Asghari[edit]

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

Last year, talking to the media, a 32-year old Iranian girl claimed to have broken the record of swimming in the Iranian international waters while wearing an odd swimsuit. However, the Ministry of Sports in the government of Ahmadinejad refused to register this athletic achievement in the national records because they do not officially recognize any such thing as women’s swimming costume.

Publishing a video, "Elham Sadat Asghari" had claimed to have swum while wearing a cloak, scarf and wetsuit but now, after a year, the authorities of the Ministry of Sports have disclosed the fact that she had not put on any cloak and scarf and had lied to the reporters, playing the victim and seeking fame. Elham Asghari lied to the whole world and deceived everyone to become famous.

Now, it has also turned out that no official observer was accompanying Asghari when she was swimming, thus making it totally impossible to register such a record. However, by the help of "Marzieh Akbar Abadi", one of the directors of the Ministry of Sports in the government of Ahmadinejad, Elham Asghari had lied to the world media to promote the Islamic hijab. Meanwhile, the reporter who had produced a video of swimming of Elham Asghari wearing an Islamic swimsuit is the only person who has been collecting evidence in the past year to prove the lies told by Elham Asghari and now, he has succeeded in finding evidence which proves all of Elham’s lies in addition to disclosing about her in the Iranian media. Now, he has the video of swimming of Elham Asghari which has not been published in any media yet. Although Asghari had claimed to have worn a heavy suit with cloak and scarf while swimming in order to register a record, this video shows that she had lied and she had no cloak and scarf and swam just like an ordinary swimmer.

Please check this links:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Thanks--Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and develop the article with the new sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - notability seems weak but the subject is connected to an important issue, women's rights under Islam and in Iran, so it would be disappointing to loose the article. Also, the AfD proposer has not presented a valid argument for deletion of the article. The issues the proposer raises are all to do with content - and in fact the points raised actually suggest the subject has some notability at least in an Iranian context. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per coverage in western sources (I can't read the Iranian sources). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke (House of Heroes EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable release. RadioU is a good station, but the rest are self-published sources. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 August 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 15:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in secondary sources. (Most of the sources I found were primary.) ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:09, 18 August 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 20:50, 24 August 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, (t) Josve05a (c) 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not the place to build support for your crowdfunding effort. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Young (comedian)[edit]

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

Not notable. Other than some minor local interest coverage of a stunt, he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local comedian who did a minor stunt. Nothing notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 17 August 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 20:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bar for notability for a stand-up must be lower than for a professor.....PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:31, 29 August 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, (t) Josve05a (c) 23:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker Knockerz[edit]

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

Biography of a deceased musician, making no strong claim that he passes WP:NMUSIC and relying almost entirely on primary, unreliable (blogs, wikis) and commercial/promotional sources for "referencing", with barely more than a shred of proper coverage in reliable sources (#1 and #4 ain't so bad, admittedly, but two real references aren't enough to get a person past WP:GNG if they don't cleanly pass a subject-specific inclusion rule.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can pony up a properly written and properly sourced article, but he doesn't get to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough from what is there at this point. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to poor sourcing and lack of notability Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Rajaei[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Invented the recently-deleted galaxy-like and gradual correspondence theory, which now turns this article into a WP:COATRACK. Huon (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. Virtually all sources are either self-published or unreliable. It also violates WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. See also this thread. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Omnipaedista. No real evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability criteria, and the material on the 'theory' is almost devoid of intelligible content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the independent coverage required by GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kelly (dancer)[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -As an entertainment historian I can assure you that Eddie Kelly is indeed notable and does satisfy WP:GNG guidelines. Kelly was a key figure and dancer on American Band Stand and was also a key figure for gay dancers in mainstream entertainment at that time. The story was told here>[6],[7] and here> [8]. There are also plenty of articles talking about him as strictly a dancer. This is a definite keep vote for me.--Canyouhearmenow 12:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Keep - references show notability. But article needs to be somewhat rewritten. 17:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAA3AAA (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:21, 24 August 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 August 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:13, 24 August 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, Ansh666 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't appear to be clear agreement on whether the references provided are from reliable sources or not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise Hockey Manager[edit]

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

Nominating procedurally instead of a G4 speedy. Previous AFD was closed as delete because the game had not yet been released. Because the argument was mainly that the game had not been released, it's possible it now meets WP:GNG and it deserves a second go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am putting this at the top of the page so it's easily seen. I have edited this article and included references to the following sites:

PopMatters: An editor said below that it is a reliable source.
Sportsnet and TSN (The Sports Network): Both are TV and radio networks in Canada that also operate web sites, magazines, and other media outlets. Both have their own Wikipedia pages.
MacNews: Has an editorial staff: http://www.macnews.com/aboutus
Operation Sports: Has an editorial staff too: http://www.operationsports.com/about.php

I could also include a link to the review published by XGN, which is a Metacritic-approved site, although it's in a foreign language. Do Metacritic-approved sites count?user:Bradcwriter

This article should not be deleted because, as you said, the game has been released and it meets the guidelines. More references can be added, if necessary.^{User talk:Bradcwriter} — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I found a single review, but that still doesn't meet WP:GNG. All of the other sources I found—including sources generally found to be reliable by WikiProject Video games—were trivial or primary/press releases. Woodroar (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of reviews of FHM 2014:

Here's the Metacritic page:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/franchise-hockey-manager-2014 Bradcwriter— Bradcwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

None of which are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. We have an excellent page on reliable sources (especially as applied to video games) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the sites listed may not be on the list indicated, they're still 3rd party sites. Bradcwriter

They need to be reliable though. Most of these are not... Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are reliable sources defined, then? I've looked at the page that lists them, but who decided which site is reliable and which isn't? For example, why is Operation Sports considered unreliable? And the comment above that a single review was found is false, as shown above.User:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the reliable sources page a bit more, I don't see why most of the sources listed above are unreliable, as you've claimed. Yes, the YouTube links run afoul of the reliability definition, as does the stelzy.com link, which is a personal blog, but the rest of them are sports and gaming sites (or sports gaming sites, like Operation Sports) that have editors and such. They're not extremist sites or personal blogs or anything else that Wikipedia defines as unreliable.User:Bradcwriter 10:13, 17 August 2014 (PST)

Uh, you realize that I linked to the definition of a reliable source on the comment you responded to, right? Do the sources have a clearly defined editorial staff? Writers with actual credentials as journalists? An editorial policy? A history for fact checking? Or are they just random self-proclaimed enthusiasts with little to none of those things. Popmatters qualifies...but just about the rest of these do not. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I'm aware you linked to it. Should I post links to the pages that list the editorial staffs of the sites? And beyond that, am I expected to research the writers' backgrounds (do reviewers typically have to have journalistic credentials?) How do I know what their editorial policies are, as well as their history for fact checking? And how do you define "random self-proclaimed enthusiasts"? I realize that a Blogspot site would qualify as that, but what about Operation Sports and many of the others? You've already said that PopMatters counts, and XGN is a Metacritic-approved site, so do those two count?User:Bradcwriter

Comment - Popmatters is definitely a reliable source. I didn't realize they covered videogames, they're usually a music website, but regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as illustrated above, there are a good few reliable sources available, which seem to me to be sufficient to meet verifiability and the general notability guidelines. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 19:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you find to be reliable? The baseball rumors blogspot? Or the random YouTube link? Most of those example links are not what Wikipedia considers usuable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two good reviews could establish WP:GNG. Perhaps someone could cut the long list above to just two, and it would be easier for anyone to judge those. I see sources which do not meet WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 has already said that Pop Matters counts. How about XGN, which is a Metacritic-approved site? That would be two right there.User:Bradcwriter

Comment - Okay, PopMatters has been established as a reliable source. XGN is approved by Metacritc. Does that count?

http://www.xgn.nl/review/57821/franchise-hockey-manager-2014
http://www.popmatters.com/review/175647-franchise-hockey-manager-2014/

TSN operates TV and radio stations in Canada. That counts, correct? (If not, then I have no idea what could be a reliable source, other than whatever a random Wikipedia editor deems as such.)
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_cullen/?id=433263 (See item #9)

Sportsnet operates TV and radio stations in Canada, along with a magazine and whatever else. From their About page: "The multiplatform brand consists of Sportsnet, sportsnet.ca, Sportsnet 590 The FAN, Sportsnet 960 The FAN, Sportsnet magazine, Sportsnet Mobile, Sportsnet NOW, and the Hockey Central app on iPad and Playbook. Sportsnet consists of four regional channels (Sportsnet East, Ontario, West and Pacific), and the nationally-distributed Sportsnet ONE, Sportsnet World, and Sportsnet 360."

Again, is that good enough? If not, then, once again, what fits the standard?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/got-game/what-exactly-is-franchise-hockey-manager/

Operation Sports has an editorial staff: http://www.operationsports.com/about.php

Same with Gaming Trend: http://gamingtrend.com/about/

I could probably go through more, but is this enough to fit Wikipedia's guidelines? I get why the guidelines exist, but this whole "define reliable sources" thing seems to be almost arbitrary.User:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For our purposes, a reliable site usually has: a list of staff, statements about editorial policy, a journalist by-line that is clickable and leads to their background and credentials, a number of journalists on staff with backgrounds in legitimate game journalism, won a number of awards for their coverage and/or is frequently praised by other sites for their coverage. They usually don't have: prominent "write for us" links, numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, and frequent "articles" that are really press releases or just written around press releases. These are the things I typically look for when considering a source. We also have Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (or the more specific Video game page linked above) to determine reliability/unreliability on a case-by-case basis if a site has not been reviewed. Woodroar (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of speaking in generalities, can someone go through the links I've posted above (the short list, not the long one) and note which ones are okay and which ones aren't and why? Also, sports games can be covered on sports web sites (as well as talk radio and TV news) as well as video game sites -- you can't just look at video game sites in this instance.User:Bradcwriter 14:37, 18 August 2014 (PST)

Thats really the job of the person trying to defend the article. However, for a large list of generally accepted sites, look over WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit the article and include links to reliable sources, then.user:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 19 August 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 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put this at the top of the page and am copying it down here since there has been no response to it since I posted it a couple days ago. I have edited this article and included references to the following sites:

PopMatters: An editor said below that it is a reliable source.
Sportsnet and TSN (The Sports Network): Both are TV and radio networks in Canada that also operate web sites, magazines, and other media outlets. Both have their own Wikipedia pages.
MacNews: Has an editorial staff: http://www.macnews.com/aboutus
Operation Sports: Has an editorial staff too: http://www.operationsports.com/about.php

I could also include a link to the review published by XGN, which is a Metacritic-approved site, although it's in a foreign language. Do Metacritic-approved sites count?user:Bradcwriter 16:50, 24 August 2014 (Pacific time)

No, Metacritic uses both reliable and unreliable sites. The MacNews source is a trivial press release, not useable. The Operation Sports source is better, but I can't find if the author has any journalism background. The TSN source is not about the subject and only mentions it in passing. The Sportsnet source is terrible, to be honest: it basically says "I don't know what this game is, so here's an interview", which essentially pushes it into primary source territory. I'm on the fence about PopMatters, but I'll defer to Sergecross73's opinion just because I'm short on time right now. Woodroar (talk) 00:51, 25 August 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, Ansh666 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By a simple !vote count, this would be closed as No Consensus. But, the people arguing for Keep have presented clear evidence of notability. None of the arguments on the other side refute the references found, so I'm going to call this a straight Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patralekha[edit]

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

Just 1 film to her credit, hence fails WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, non notable Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no doubt its up to mark for WP:V but still it fails WP:N and of course as @Skr15081997: suggested it also fails WP:NACTOR. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the only film she has acted in; CityLights (2014 film). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 14 August 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 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites mainstream media articles about her that convey notability, e.g., [9] and [10]. It is not clear why the opinions above do not address this. Sandstein 12:08, 30 August 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, Ansh666 21:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Fails WP:N. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Sandstein, I'm seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. The articles tend to be on the short side, and come from a pretty short period of time, but there's more than enough of them to overcome that. Here's a sampling (including the two Sandstein found):
- CityLights Actress Patralekha Is Happy With Her Unconventional Debut, IndiaTimes, 28 May 2014
- Newcomer Patralekha eyeing Hollywood, The Times of India, 29 May 2014
- Did not get a break because I am Rajkummar Rao’s girlfriend: Patralekha, The Indian Express, 25 May 2014
- Why Rajkummar and Patralekha are tight-lipped about their relationship, The Times of India, 5 May 2014
- Patralekha: Didn't Get Citylights Because I Am Dating Rajkummar Rao, NDTV, 18 May 2014
- Why it was a good idea to cast Rajkummar Rao's girlfriend Patralekha in 'City Lights', CNN-IBN, 30 May 2014
- “Patralekha is my girlfriend”, Filmfare, 21 May 2014
- Our film is bigger than our relationship: Patralekha, Hindustan Times, 29 May 2014
- Patralekha doesn't mind doing bold roles, The Deccan Chronicle, 26 May 2014
- I want to do Tamil, Telugu, Bengali films: Patralekha, Hindustan Times, 10 June 2014
- Rajkummar Rao and Patralekha holidaying in Dubai, The Times of India, 2 July 2014
- Patralekhaa not moving in with beau Rajkummar, The Times of India, 27 July 2014
- 'Rajkummar and I are in love', The Times of India, 16 May 2014

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Neil P. Quinn above, it's quite clear that this person meets the WP:GNG and quite handily too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Spawn (comics). Apart from Upjav, the "keep" !votes are all basically WP:ILIKEIT !votes and not policy-based. As for the sourcing: the references added to the article during this AfD are all basically about Spawn, not an in-depth discussion of the out-of-universe notability of this character. I also note that one reference (Boyd, Todd (30 October 2008). African Americans and Popular Culture [3 volumes] 2. ABC-CLIO. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-313-06408-1) has, as far as I can see, nothing to do with this character or comic book. Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overt-Kill[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 14:59, 21 August 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 August 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantial reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this is completely absurd. I don't read comic books and I've heard of this character.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've heard of it" is not a sound argument. I've looked for reliable, independedn sources that discuss this topic in detail and have been unsuccessful. Reyk _YO! 04:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's funny, because I found a bunch, character was created on a tv show at the behest of Stan Lee, was mentioned in 2 lawsuits and was one of the first villains who happened to be reincarnated 4 times throughout the comic.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not a matter of whether you have heard of the character or not if reliable third person sources can be found to justify the article by all means do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one is popularity and good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have enough information to be notable. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently the argument of "I've heard of it" isn't a good argument here. Whereas constantly quoting Wikipedia acronyms and referring to Google search results for sources is a good argument. If you feel the page should be deleted (any page, not just this one) then express your views accordingly without referring to Wikipedia policies. As for me - I haven't heard of this character. I have seen various sources online although probably not as many as the nominator wants. I think that the article covers a notable-enough character.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is very well sourced - Washington Times has multiple articles referencing Overt-Kill, coupled with a solid number of publications on comic books (not just some random fan page) - definitely a keep. If there are other issues, then bring them up, but there's no way the rationale for deletion can be based on a lack of third-party sources. Upjav (talk) 00:15, 1 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, Ansh666 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did this really merit a relisting? An admin would have probably closed it sometime today given the amount of discussion and time elapsed since AfD nomination. Upjav (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was relisted because the wrong consensus had been reached. This is Wikipedia after all!--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 12:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Can (and should) be revisited later (per WP:Consensus can change), but for now it's very clear that consensus is that it meets WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 celebrity pictures hack[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2014 celebrity pictures hack

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

I speedily deleted this article as The Fappening but with all the news coming out, perhaps it is best to leave this up to an AfD to decide whether it meets WP:EVENT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The largest photo leak of its kind in history, covered in hundreds of reliable sources. Wincent77 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have stringent content and verified sources as well as due emphasis guidelines for a reason, and as of its present form: 21:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC), this article is breaking many of them. WP:BLP would cover Apple, Inc., as well as the named women celebrities, yet little has been done to substantiate the lede, which in a worst hearsay fashion accuses it of having been compromised in its critical server operations. The body of the article only includes an External Links section entry addressing this, and that link is not enough. As a veteran Wikipedian, I have cautioned my younger colleagues on IRC #wikipedia-en for 18 hours now if not longer to hold their horses until technical RSes of substantive and encyclopedic grade become available. At present, this is only a murky unidentified-means crime story. --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. Rather than waste time trying delete this article, editors should collaborate to expand the current one. It does need work, but there's no basis to deleting it. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Wincent77 said, this is the largest security breach of its kind and probably the second most important security breach of the year, after Heartbleed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Major entertainment and software related news, though the article name need a name change--Ste moc 21:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're not a fucking news source. We can afford to wait a few days and then actually determine the extent of the topic's notability and rely on purely reliable, verifiable, and actually true sources. A lot of users seem to think we have to be TMZ, in that if a story is breaking we have to have a post on it right away. We're not. Almost of the sources we have right now are full of lines like "suspected to be", "possibly", "are waiting for confirmation of" and the like. We've got sources quoting what they claim is the hacker, sources talking about how the hacker hasn't been found, sources saying its due to iCloud, sources saying it was a different type of hacking. It's a shit article. Maybe it should be recreated in a few days. But especially given the BLP concerns, there is no reason not to wait.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm a bit confused about all of the assumptions being made here. Could this be a major tech event that leads to a lot of changes? Sure. Could it also be some run of the mill type of hacking that leads to the story fading away in a week? Sure. And once you take away these assumptions of groundbreaking changes, you're left with the clear reason why WP:EVENT exists. As of now, stories about "Helen Mirren looking good in a Bikini" or "Lil Wayne comments on prison sentence" have also gotten their coverage from the same sources, but in those cases we didn't have people making unfounded assumptions about the actual significance of the incident.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- Major incident. Notable event. --Tovojolo (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite alot of press coverage, Notable event. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable and extraordinary. If further information comes out (if it hasn't already) that this was indeed related to "cloud" technologies/storage, I predict there could be a lot of content related to that as well in this article going forward. Never mind the individual celebrity responses. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Should probably speedy keep/close this, WP:SNOW. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gonna have to disagree on that, pretty much every argument so far has been astoundingly weak and has failed to address the EVENT concerns, or is based entirely on a prediction that is yet to be confirmed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it can be potential legal threat for cloud storage technologies, such as multiple law enforcements. GamePad64 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is, up to now, one of the most significant privacy breaches that have occurred with any cloud service.--Keimzelle (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both that offensive redirect (which needs to be salted and obliterated out of existence; what are we, 12? And nope...that term hasn't appeared on my Twitter or Tumblr timelines, so it seems to be a headline writer's hope for a pub without an article here to get this out, not the actual term) and this form of the article, which reads as a giant BLP timebomb as-is. "Less sl** shaming of the victims than was usual" does not belong in any kind of article that purports to digest the details of this, and the common person is just going to question what the heck 'doxxing' is because they have no idea. This writing is shameful and so primary a fourth grader would red-mark this article ("an exploit of iCloud, where iPhone photos are automatically synced"? That kind of writing is just unacceptable, we can do much better). Also, those who confirmed the existence of the photos didn't just say 'yep, that's me'. They put out statements decrying that they got out, which needs to be expanded on to be acceptable for NPOV purposes. This needs better sourcing and a much more germane and less BLP-violating sludge than what appears now. If that happens, I will switch to a keep, but as-is? This is an unacceptable article. Nate • (chatter) 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the "offensive redirect" can be taken in a separate RfD. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that nomination has been done. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into 4chan. Plainly not significant enough per WP:EVENT to warrant its own article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, into phone hacking perhaps?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or iCloud as suggested below. Where it's merged is less important than the fact that it needs to be merged. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and merge into iCloud, as it is a notable incident in the security of that service. Delete "fappening", unless the name grow substantially beyond the 4chan community. -Fennec 23:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete setting apart from any moral consideration it simply fails WP:10YT. Wikipedia is not Noah's Ark of the Internet. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article easily meets the WP:GNG, and is quite a notable incident; the hacking of nude photos from multiple viewpoints is very significant and very notable. The threat of legal action for having the photos published even more so makes it notable; it implies that the subject sees it as a notable action to take rather than something so easily dismissed. Tutelary (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt anyone would expect a celebrity to treat their photos being leaked as "something so easily dismissed", but I'm not sure what point that proves. Celebrities lawyers also often issue statements when they're accused of assaulting a photographer, are in a drunk driving accident, or were accused of getting plastic surgery in a newspaper. Incidentally, these are all also incidents that have happened, get coverage in the usual suspects, but are very clearly against WP:EVENT.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that they see it as a 'threat' enough that they would seek legal action to rectify this. (the people leaking and publishing it) Legal actions from celebrities are especially notable imho. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do agree that we could have waited longer before creating this so that the inaccurate information making the rounds in the media could have settled before our editors put their hands on it. Regardless, this is a truly unique event that has generated a considerable amount of coverage and is surely notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is still worthy news a year from now, it might be considered for inclusion. But there are undoubtedly thousands of "leaked celebrity photos" incidents in our recent history (Lady Di, Jackie O, Cate Middleton), and there is no reason that this one merits a WP article. Also, I see no reason that nude pictures would be considered per se interesting when other major leaks of millions of credit cards and personally identifiable info is not. This is simply not 'pedia material. LaMona (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and the article needs to return to the original name which is The Fappening'. Twobells (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies GNG on every cylinder. BLP must be maintained however.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - It's not so important that it starts another war in the Middle East or eliminates Al-Qaida once and for all, but it's an incredibly large hit on celebrities. It's not line one starlet releases some nude pics she claims was only intended for her ex-boyfriend, and then accuses the guy (rightly or wrongly) of splashing them all over the internet. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has received significant coverage all over the world. Alex (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event has become a major news event, making the front pages on most major news sites. In my personal view, it becomes notable and relevant as a celebrity story once it has made it beyond the gossip publications, and into serious news. Which this has, many times. The article has vastly improved in recent hours, and may still break some style guidelines, but it does not qualify for deletion. Wavemaster⁴⁴⁷_{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major story, doesn't belong as a subcat to 4Chan, touches on a number of notable people, a major corporation, and numerous societal issues. FWIW while the name "the Fappening" is distasteful there're a ton of reliable news sources now using the name, I'm about to post links on the article's talk page.JamesG5 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not required to use whatever garbage name the tabloid media/idiot Tweeters/Redditors/Channers have come up for with this. If we actually allow that term as a redirect I would rightfully justify anyone mocking WMF for doing so, and those who endorsed the use of such. Let's have a little sense and decency. Nate • (chatter) 01:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to clutter this up, see my note on the article's talk page with a stack of news sources using it.JamesG5 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This isn't just a '4chan leaked nudes' story, it has major implications in the technology spectrum, and it impacts a lot of celebrity articles as well as others. Lots of sources, big news, keep. Kaini (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there even a point of having this discussion now? This certainly isn't going to be speedily deleted or snow closed, and so it looks like this discussion is going to be nothing but people guessing and predicting. Which isn't too surprising given that this is an awfully made article that has to use allegedly in half of its sentences because almost every single fact is still awaiting confirmation, but still. If we find out in a week that this wasn't actually an iCloud hacking, or that the hack was actually by the department of state or aliens, or that it wasn't a hack at all but simply a user error, 90% of the !votes are suddenly irrelevant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: The basis for the AfD, WP:EVENT, states that "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This story is clearly non-routine, received coverage in multiple reliable sources, and its impact are long lasting as to how to prevent such hacking. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how could we be forgetting that by long-lasting we meant "around 24 hours or so". And how could we also forget the part where we learned how the hacking worked, since you know about the long lasting impact about its prevention. Oh wait. We know almost nothing about it yet. You're just being ridiculous.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to remind you of WP:Civility. As for the long-lasting, see Hunt begins for hacker behind Jennifer Lawrence nude photo theft. This will not disappear from the news any time soon. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's uncivil at all. Your claim is still ridiculous. The article you linked proves my point. Every single thing in it is either alleged, suspected, or potentially. This is an article that has no choice but to be based on mush rather than substance because it was stupidly created before not just notability but the actual content could be confirmed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the hack only produced images of say one celebrity, then this would be a footnote on that celebrity's article and maybe another footnote on [iCloud]] but as of now, just over 20 celebs pic has been released and counting, this is not a 24 hour event, its an "ongoing" one as it not only related to nude images of celebrities but a major "bug" in a very well known online storage site ..as someone mentioned above, its quite similar to the Heartbleed bug..--Ste moc 03:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and what if it was not an iCloud breach. What if these were all separate situations that were simply released in one leak. Because that's the going theory it seems right now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major security breach, regardless of what the content of that breach is. There would be no discussion on keeping the article if, say, it was military secrets the CIA was trying to keep from North Korea n'at. It does bring the bigger issue on the reliability of cloud storage into discussion, especially after the recent Supreme Court case American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo did set somewhat of a precedent against cloud computing, even if the Supreme Court went out of its way and said that it was specifically targeting Aereo. Could it use a better title? Yes. But this is relevant enough to keep. Jgera5 (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article describes a somewhat significant occurrence involving notable people which seems to have attracted fairly wide and in-depth media coverage, and there are strong indications that it will get much more of it in the future as possible legal action is taken against [insert names]. Even if we choose to think that the event will be soon forgotten, we should suppress our urge to rush to delete the article for now – its deletion can wait until it's abundantly clear that the incident wasn't all that important after all. As for calling it "the fappening," I'm sure everyone here appreciates the crudeness of the phrase, but if it's indeed what most media outlets refer to it as, we have little choice but to follow suit; after all, Wikipedia is not censored. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG This is a major security breach regardless of how it happened. It is not just news, it is a historic event. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's reasonable to expect that the repercussions of this event will continue much longer than other hacks/leaks of intimate photos. The security of cloud storage will very likely become a continuing topic of conversation in light of this event. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can have Edison Chen photo scandal I don't see why this is not notable. Big Wang (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RAPID states, "Articles about breaking news events ... are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete." This is international, front-page news today and so a deletion discussion is inappropriate. Come back and look at the topic in a week. Andrew (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very wide media coverage. Nergaal (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable media coverage and all the victims are celebrities and it clearly tells the world the security vulnerability of Apple (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew's argument. News coverage is still incoming and deciding on deletion right now is a little premature. I say that we give it a week or two and then re-visit this to determine if it is notable enough. It is receiving wide-spread, global coverage in multiple languages, so there's no end of sourcing to be found. What ultimately needs to be decided here is whether or not this will have any lasting notability, which cannot and probably should not be decided only a day or two after the event itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the biggest hacks in internet history. Maybe not the most complicated/geopolitical security risky/cash-worthy one but the one that whistleblew the internet security problems to a worldwide level. I know it may sound WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but since we don't have standards - as far as I know - for internet hacks I find it relevant that articles within Category:Robberies exist and probably deserve to be here, while internet thefts are discussed for AfD without having proper categories/criteria/classification. Leaks and internet leaks should have notability here and if it isn't established yet it's time to fix that. It's just the the tip of the iceberg. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons I laid out when submitted for Speedy Delete on Talk:2014 celebrity pictures hack. It's notable and topical, and I am even bold enough to say that this should be obvious. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The story has been covered extensively in the media, has serious legal and technological implications, involves a huge number of noteworthy people and is the subject of a (likely lengthy) high profile legal investigation. Frankly, I can't believe we're even discussing this. Freeranging intellect (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems very unlikely that this event can have a lid kept on it. Maybe in the future the excitement will die down and it will be merged elsewhere, but it seems to be at its dawn a notable case of breach of celebrity privacy. To the delete voters I would say, we're better than TMZ, even though we might wish this article didn't exist, it is more likely to a fairer and less sensational article than what the news coverage will be in the short term. The current article told me, w/in 30 seconds time, what this was all about. I can't get that on reddit, twitter, or any "news source".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: the event in question is clearly notable, and should be covered here. Even I who doesn't follow the news regularly heard about it on Freenode from several different people yesterday. I also searched for a wikipedia article in an attempt to better understand the technical exploit that enabled the leak. I believe we can and should cover it (without violating the victims' privacy). Shlomif (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is already being reported on mainstream and alternative media websites and television programs as one of the most significant news events of 2014 with wide-reaching implications for web security, hacking, cloud services, the double-standards of treatment for celebrities versus non-celebrities, and many more relevant issues. This article should not merely remain, but should be expanded. I would suggest however that the article be given a better more appropriate/relevant title. StickyWikis | talk — 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is compelling public interest in understanding the causes of this problem and the prevention of future incidents. The media has thoroughly reported on this topic, and there is no returning to a pre-release condition for the persons harmed. It is worth noting that under United States law, one usually has no right of privacy in what is knowingly disclosed to another party, including apparently cloud storage providers. I am not saying this is an entirely sound legal situation, but it does appear to be the law at this time. Marc W. Abel (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:LASTING, the event led the FBI to investigate the hackings and Apple to go ahead with new safety features with their phones to counter a repeat. WP:DEPTH, there are many reliable sources on the subject that discuss the hackings in detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per a lot of the reasons listed above. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miranova Place[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given coverage in Dwell [11], plus articles like these [12] [13][14][15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage indicated by Arxiloxos is very extensive and in-depth and plenty of evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly meets WP:GEOFEAT with in-depth coverage in national sources and specialized books.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per above -thank you for your input. Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Supranational titleholders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD removed; page dependent on a deleted page for a pageant declared non-notable. Mabalu (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. ––Davey2010 • (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Non-notable list of winners of non-notable beauty pageant, for whom the main article has already been deleted at AfD. No evidence of notability per WP:NLIST. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Lewczuk[edit]

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

Winner of a pageant declared non-notable at AFD, no other claims of notability. She was runner-up in one other pageant but being a runner up is not sufficient for an article - it's overall winner or nothing. Mabalu (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. ––Davey2010 • (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of 'hometown girl wins' articles not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox tree records[edit]

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

Non notable record label. I would have speedy deleted it, but the article has survived for seven years so a week longer to discuss it won't do any harm. I couldn't find reliable sources to indicate any notability for this[16]. Fram (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable signed artists, no chart action, no awards. I can find no independent, reliable mentions (trivial or otherwise) mentions of the label except for the Wikipedia mirrors and content grabbers. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in independent reliable sources for this label; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. Gongshow talk 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AG Church Thuvayoor[edit]

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

if debate continues it will be a massive problem because of administration Wellwisherobliged (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original nominator (User:Wellwisherobliged) left a restore request at WP:REFUND in this section, meaning that they have asked to have the nomination withdrawn. However since there are two "delete" rationales here that argue that the church has a lack of notability, I'm going to leave this AfD nomination open to run its full course via AfD. I'm also concerned over the claims that the Wikipedia entry has a new "administrator" and I'd like to make sure that User:Abinpbiju and User:Wellwisherobliged are aware that neither of them are considered to be administrators on Wikipedia and that as neither of them have WP:OWNERSHIP of the page, they will have to show that the church has notability via reliable sources (WP:RS) if they want the page to remain on Wikipedia. We cannot keep an entry on a church just because it is considered to be sacred- you have to establish notability via reliable sources that are independent of the church itself and go into depth about it. Routine notifications of events, database entries (WP:TRIVIAL), or anything released by the church or its people (WP:PRIMARY) would not be considered a reliable source that would establish notability. However at the same time, coverage does not need to be in English and can be in Hindi, as this church is located in India. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the nominator's reason is not a valid deletion reason, the church in question clearly fails notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete for no assertion of notability. This should have been speedied; now we have to waste everyone's time with a snowball AfD. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 18:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for deletion further — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abinpbiju (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 September 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- All we have is a list of NN pastors (NN as none have articles) of a church with 82 members. That is clearly a NN church. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Hindhaugh[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -I am not sure how you could assert a non-notable claim on this one when there are plenty of third part sources to be found like some of these> [17],[18],[19]. There are others but i would think the ones I found would be sufficient to prove he meets WP:Notability. I do agree though that the article needs serious work and expansion.--Canyouhearmenow 12:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't constitute substantive coverage in reliable sources. One is an interview in which he's mostly talking about himself (which is acceptable for some confirmation of facts, but not able to confer notability); one is an organization which describes itself, right in the article in question, as a commercial partner of the radio service that Hindaugh works for, and is thus a primary source (not to mention that any coverage in which the body text refers to him as "John" rather than as "Hindaugh" is automatically not a reliable source); the third is a blurb which merely mentions his name once or twice in passing, but in which he is not the subject. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Article does not cite sufficient reliable sourcing to stand alone as an independent BLP. No prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources come to light, but in this form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 16:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pursuant to Bearcat's comments. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:04, 31 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes amount to "I think this is a big accomplishment", and ipse dixit is not enough to rebut the deletion arguments presented. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association players with 40 or more points in a final game[edit]

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

A copy and paste job from List of National Basketball Association players with 50 or more points in a playoff game. Article does not contain the content which is described by the title. Unless someone wants to actually do the work on it, it should be deleted. Hoops gza (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate content per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Duplicate information that wouldn't pass a threshold for notability as a standalone article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NBA Playoffs and NBA Finals, they're different. 100.2.41.66 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This list fails WP:LISTN in that no independent, extensive, reliable coverage exists on the topic of players who have scored 40+ points in a Finals game. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the NBA, the players make 60 points in a game, or make 50 points in a playoffs game, or make 40 points in a final game, they're not easy. KO.2 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that the standard for a stand-alone list on Wikipedia is significant coverage of the specific list subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, not "they're not easy," right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not valid rationale for a !vote and should not be accounted for by the closing admin. If you can provide a reason like GNG or LISTN, with proof for your claim, then it should be counted. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot understand how about persist to do anything about the deletion? If List of National Basketball Association players with 40 or more points in a final game has be delete, List of National Basketball Association players with 40 or more points in a final game and List of National Basketball Association players with most points in a game must have be delete too. If PPG in a final game is not independent, the PPG in a playoff game and the PPG in a regular season game are not independent too, both. If not，it just is the double standard! ~~74.72.5.181 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.10.132 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the IP and timestamp of the above comment. 74.72.10.132 had inexplicably signed with a hand-coded different IP address and incorrect timestamp.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nothing suspicious about that, eh, Bags? LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, scoring 40 or more points in a Finals game would be a "legendary" achievement. A performance of that caliber would be a big deal if this were to happen in today's NBA Finals, and those performances would for sure receive sufficient attention from many sources. Back to Jrcla2's comment, I did add reliable references to the article, but they weren't extensive.

Robert4565 (talk) 03:57, 1 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin – All of the IPs that came out of the woodwork to vote keep, as well as User:KO.2, are currently under scrutiny at an ongoing SPI. Please do not close this AfD until the SPI has been resolved. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if the SPI has enough evidence to call them a WP:DUCK. In any event, the closing admin here could choose to discount the IPs as "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion" per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS.—Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, mon frere. KO.2 has a confirmed history of sock-puppetry on Wikipedia, and both IP addresses, with limited prior editing history, are from the same small area in southern New York. There's ample evidence to call a DUCK a DUCK, especially when it's loudly quacking in your face. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this grouping meets WP:LISTN. Moreover, the existing list at List of National Basketball Association players with 50 or more points in a playoff game could be modified to sort by the type of playoff series e.g. Finals, conference finals, etc if consensus at that article deems it notable.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dupilcate as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNUWin II[edit]

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

The article has no reliable sources and none appear to exist. No evidence of notability. — Keφr 09:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not seeing any additional cites in the corresponding WP.fr article, not finding any reviews online. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sources, even in the non-english versoins. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to keep the article so that it can be moved to Bella Terra Publishing. Please note that Move is not an AfD outcome and there is no onus on the closer to carry out that move. I have left a note on the article talk page detailing the consensus here. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hartnett House[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG - I couldn't even find that the company have a website. A Google search for 'Harnett House' turned up mainly hits about a children's centre. It has a mention in a NYTimes article and I've added info from Worldcat. Has been tagged for notability for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[off-topic comments refactored to talk page, WT:Articles for deletion/Hartnett House Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but see below) Not notable. The only reference provided in the article barely mentions the subject in passing. Google searches mainly found a children's home in Australia by the same name.--MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGO & WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (See below)[reply]

How about creating a list of map publishers and redirecting this to it? There are a few sources in GBooks, such as [20] [21] [22]. Some of these look like reviews. James500 (talk) 09:32, 1 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG ,WP:GNG and cannot find reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources whatsoever? What is wrong with "Bibliographic Guide to Maps and Atlases" (G K Hall, 1993), which I cited above? Or the other two that I cited? James500 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator removed the official webpage from the article, diff, just before nomination, and then reports in the nomination, "I couldn't even find that the company have [sic] a website." WP:DEADLINK states (emphasis in original), "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer." The removed website is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20011001185407/http://hartnetthouse.com/. An AboutUs page exists at http://web.archive.org/web/20010803123026/http://www.hartnetthouse.com/aboutus.htm. Unscintillating (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BEFORE D1 finds:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYsekO14FGQC&pg=PA668&dq=%22Hartnett+House%22+publisher+OR+map&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XYUFVPDND5PBggTiwIEQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22Hartnett%20House%22%20publisher%20OR%20map&f=false

This source leads to another search term: Robert Hartnett

There are ghits at Google Scholar.

Unscintillating (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search on Bella Terra Publishing yields:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Lighthouses-vintage-trains-subjects-for-Bella-4998966.php

This is a full-length article on the successor company.

Unscintillating (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Bella Terra Publishing Publishers have a low threshold to inclusion, partly because Wikipedians need these articles as a resource, and partly because the publications are self-evidential. Unscintillating (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bella Terra Publishing and rework accordingly. There seems to be a sufficient degree of coverage. James500 (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bella Terra Publishing as per Unscintillating. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with a move if, and only if, somebody promises to make the necessary changes in the article - adding at least the one reference cited here, and doing the necessary rewrite of the article. If the article is moved but nobody actually does the rewrite, then we are left with a worse situation than we have now - we would have a basically unsourced article which also has the wrong title. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the answer that I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Park Ranger. Ultimately, if no one else does it, the task will fall upon the closing admin. It wouldn't exactly be a major undertaking. James500 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move. Technically the close should be for "Keep" i believe. From discussion above, it also seems it could/should be moved to current title of the successor firm. --do ncr am 01:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmen genocide[edit]

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

There is no source to prove that those activities are regarded as "genocide". Google News search gives no results [23], nor does Google books search [24]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles should be written after events happen and after sources have written about those events - not written before they have happened. And genocide is not a term that should be casually overused. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the siege of Amirli to describe to recent events. We should wait until the future--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should include articles about events after it happen not before! 37.107.58.164 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ISIS has been targeting non-Sunni Muslim and non-Arab populations of Syria and Iraq. --Article editor (talk) 14:48, 29 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on other delete rationales, but the use of the word genocide in the title of this article is something that could be solved by a move, its irrelevant to the AfD. 109.77.235.196 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a pov creation whose content consists of its title and nothing much else. Its purpose IS its title. This cannot be solved by a move. An event that did not happen cannot have an article whatever its title might be. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Wave 82: Various Artists, LP[edit]

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

unsourced unreliable article. This might be a totally different album or otherwise this article is a hoax. The Banner talk 11:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources besides a few ebay listings. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV and therefore GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 19:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Guess what, no consensus again, so I'll just say the same thing as last time:

Only sources are citations from Snopes, Forbes, and other sites that use it as a source. Using as a source ≠ notability. Other sources were dug up in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus", but the sources did not seem to be reliable extensive coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 22:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:WEBSITE. Coverage by cited sources is trivial and does not meet the standard in WP:GNG. A Google failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Article is clearly PROMOTIONAL thus also failing WP:NOT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I clicked through the sources made available during the first AFD, and I saw nothing directly covering the subject in reliable sources. I saw several instances where the site's faux-headlines drew brief refutation. I saw several bare mentions. I saw nothing actually covering the site, its organizers or writers. A reasonable search brings up this bare mention in the company of much more notable competitors. In this case I don't think a search for offline sources would bear fruit. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under WP:SPEEDY #2A as frivolous or vexatious nomination. Three nominations, all by the same nominator, all in two months. Anarchangel (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are these sources. Show me the rule that says that relying on something as a source makes them less important than talking about them. Are there any sources that Wikipedia relies on as sources that do not have articles, for example? Plenty of articles about sources that WP does not count as reliable, though. Absurd pseudo-logic. Anarchangel (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harbison, C. (2014-05-13). "Football Player AJ McCarron Flaunts Sexual Orientation On Live Television: Free Wood Post Satire Article Has Internet In An Uproar". International Digital Times.
Fader, Carole (2012-09-01). "Fact Check: Too important to go to Vietnam? Romney never said it". The Florida Times-Union.
Garvin, Glenn (2013-10-27). "The war on Halloween". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Note: this is an op-ed column)
Pryal, Katie Rose Guest (2012). "The Rhetoric of Sissy-Slogans: How Denigrating the Feminine Perpetuates the Terror Wars". The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 15 (503).
O'Neil, Luke (2013-05-10). "No More Fake News". New Republic.
"Is Michele Bachmann Trying To Ban Halloween? Free Wood Post Article Confuses Social Media, Spawning Epic Internet Hoax". International Design Times. 2013-10-18. (Note: source seems to have ceased publishing in January 2014)
Erb, Kelly Phillips (2012-07-30). "Why I Don't Believe That Anonymous Hacked The IRS For Romney's Returns". Forbes. (Note: this is an opinion piece, disavowed by Forbes in a disclaimer)
"Satire Website Misrepresents Ted Cruz's Christian Faith". Christian Post. 2013-09-30.
Bigelow, William (2012-10-11). "Twitter: Liberals Buy Into Fiction That Romney Wants to Ban Tampons". Breitbart. Anarchangel (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't meet any section of the standard for WP:SPEEDYKEEP (certainly not "frivolous or vexatious" given the examples offered). Since two consecutive processes ended in "no consensus", normally in deletion procedures there's no prejudice against a rapid renomination of such an outcome, especially when neither process had much participation. As to the sources provided above, I've already discussed them in my Delete assertion above. Virtually everything is bare mention, and nothing presented could be considered significant coverage in reliable sources, IMHO. There's zero coverage of the organization, just examples of the satire it portrays. BusterD (talk) 03:26, 24 August 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:13, 24 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Peace and Solidarity Committee[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG, even after being tagged for notability for over six years. A worthy organisation, and I hope someone else proves me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[off-topic comments refactored to the talk page of an AfD with identical comments, WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Delete No coverage provided at the article, and none found in a search - in fact the only thing that turned up in a search was this Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 31 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There is no significant coverage for this topic. I searched for this in google web, news, books, and scholar and found nothing (besides WP and mirrors) except a single name-drop on some university website. The one source provided in this article is now a dead link, but I found it on archives and it turned out to be just two name-drops in a transcript of a speech. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cotswold Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Small non notable bus company, I nominated this last year & It was kept, I had hoped to find sources & improve the article this year but there's barely any sources out there other than Yell and Facebook, Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also in error nominated this for a second time last yr (Not sure how!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 18 August 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP at the very least. No evidence of sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH.Charles (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above and fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rooted in Ireland[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, unresolved. Time it was fully discussed. Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, you have made exactly this same comment at ten AfDs in a row, but it is not helpful to the discussion. You offered no reason for a Keep, much less a Speedy Keep, except to question the good faith of the nominator. If you have a valid reason for keeping this article, please give it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: If you are accusing me of commenting on other users, your comment is subject to refactoring, being moved to your talk page, or being removed. Please clarify if this is what you are doing. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very minor project with no notability. ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 31 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, I have failed to find significant independent reliable sources.

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock-afire Explosion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:GNG failure. This article just reads like some stupid creepypasta. There are no sources that support this separate coverage from the restaurant. And all these stories of fires are completely unsourced as this "Hydrillium" claim. All of the sources in the article are primary, including the fan documentary of dubious notoriety. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially per the last AFD, in which additional sources were found. The "band" has actually become more notable since then, including seven weeks performing live (or as live as they can get) with Cee-lo Green in Vegas. And showed up with the Aquabats too. I'm not sure I get what you mean about the article being "stupid creepypasta", could you explain that part? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of it read like it's some sort of spooky campfire story, particularly the parts that are entirely unsourced.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the whole article but don't see anything written as a "story" or anything spooky, unless the idea of animatronics in general is enough to scare you. Can you quote the specific text you're referring to? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the "Current status" section seem fabricated. Much of the article still relies on primary souces which in themselves do not support notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What parts do you think are fabricated? Specifics please. I see some material in that section that is arguably somewhat overly-detailed (though not atypically so for WP) but nothing that suggests it's false. If you mean the warehouse accident, that's certainly true and made news in the Orlando area: link another link and even nationally: Huffington Post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That event was something that stuck out as something hard to believe, yes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable and written by someone with a COI]. Sources provided are severely deficient in that they are only 4, and absolutely non-reliable. The language is unencyclopaedic. Perhaps a small mention in the Showbiz Pizza Place article is merited, but not more than that in my opinion. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:28, 31 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in need of massive edits. It's clear that the band itself and its creation are notable, as it had a life before and after its Showbiz affiliation, but the present state is not up to Wiki standards. (Sadly, I was the nominal author of a much earlier, much more well written and comprehensive version of this article). A poorly written article does not warrant deletion, however.66.60.251.120 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no evidence presently that suggests this animatronic display meets Wikipedia's standards on notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was the centerpiece of a massively successful restaurant chain and became the impetus for that chain's rebranding in the early 1990s. Arcades were a common entity in the 80s; the combination of food and robots was what set Showbiz apart from other arcades, and Rockafire were those robots. Additionally, were it not for Fecter's refusal to sell licensing rights, we wouldn't have Chuck-e-Cheez, which itself has become a byword for children's entertainment in the US.66.60.251.120 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, far from being a "creepypasta," the stories about Fechter conducting weird fuel experiments and blowing up a building are true; it's actually responsible for destroying the last Rock-afire show. Like yourself, I was dubious; unlike yourself, I performed a quick search of Oralando news sites and was able to find confirmation.66.60.251.120 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it was the center piece of a restaurant chain. If anything that information should be on the page about the restaurant chain. There's no need for all this exposition on an animatronic display at a restaurant that went out of business. And the fuel experiment but doesn't at all seem relevant to the discussion of the animatronics. No sources say that any remaining animatronics were destroyed as the article claims. This is an unprofessionally written fan page masquerading as an encyclopedic article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company source crediting the band with the brand's success is compelling. Anyone else suspicious that the most aggressive voice for deletion lived in the vicinity of one of the article's main subjects? I smell a COI.76.31.249.221 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reliable third party source which does not support notability. Of course the company is going to say it was important. And what the hell are you talking about? How can I have a conflict of interest because I allegedly lived near something or someone?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... it looks like the source the guy is referencing is a quote from an employee in a newspaper article. Are you actually reading any of the sourced articles? (One of them about the explosion does reference the destroyed robots, BTW).66.60.251.120 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That supports the fact that an explosion happened but not that the robotic band is notable separately from the restaurants they used to be found in. None of hte sources in the article that meet the requirements at WP:RS are about the animatronics.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The restaurant (long defunct) and band (which still exists) have established themselves as independent entities. It also should allow the article to get into details about the engineering, where a restaurant's article should be about, well, pizza. tapo (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources that establish the independent notability of this topic from that of the restaurant?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A full length documentary was produced about the band, not the pizza place. It was reviewed by USA Today and VH1. http://www.rockafiremovie.com/ tapo (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the reviews of the movie then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to dig this up http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2009/11/rock-afire-explosion-best-movie-ive-seen-all-year-really/ tapo (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to load this page whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this link works instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks on and we have, essentially, only one strong voice for deletion, who also happens to be the one to start the vote in the first place. Can an editor go ahead and end the vote so we can stop arguing here and focus more energy on improving the article?66.60.251.120 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. Its a discussion on whether or not it meets internal criteria for inclusion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion in which you must realize by this point you're the only passionate voice advocating for deletion.66.60.251.120 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion where there was another advocate for deletion and a bunch of people without accounts, or who have not participated in the website in some time, who have not provided any evidence to the contrary of the reason for deletion, and in one case a false accusation of there being a conflict of interest. No one advocating for retention has provided any reliable sources that suggest the animatronic band itself is notable. Just YouTube videos showing performances have happened or references to an indepentent documentary which is the primary source of the information in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just some "animatronic" band, it's a strongly embedded memory for multiple generations who were in awe as kids watching the band come to life in front of them. The technology was notable as being state of the art at the time. They didn't just exist at Showbiz Pizza, they lived on at other establishments after Showbiz closed, such as Circus Pizza where I grew up on them here in Minnesota. They were still new and notable to be over a decade later. There were two different versions of the band, and they were reused for ones that were converted to Chuck E. Cheese characters. There's a documentary about the band itself, people use their free time to create new music for the band, including the creator himself, and they make multiple cameos and references in music and entertainment, most notable being Electric Feel, by the popular band MGMT. Just because you personally don't care and are probably too young to have been impacted by its existance doesn't mean you have to wage a war against something that many people do find notable as a part of history. There are a LOT less notable articles abound on Wikipedia, it always bewilders me when someone on a high horse forges a crusade against something for seemingly no reason except that they can.Kiwisoup (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You all keep saying this shit but there are no sources to back up your claims of this robot kid's party thing's notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article on the history as seen on Spin: http://www.spin.com/articles/masters-puppets-rock-afire-explosion-story/. Here's an article on Wired: http://www.wired.com/2008/08/showbiz-pizzas/. Here is a list of links to critic reviews of the documentary: http://www.rockafiremovie.com/press.php. These include reputable news sources such as this one from USA Today: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2009/11/rock-afire-explosion-best-movie-ive-seen-all-year-really/1#.VBCHh_ldV8E. The band and creator still get local news coverage such as these stories: http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/5/28/dr_phillips_versus_a.html. or http://www.nashvillescene.com/countrylife/archives/2013/01/31/what-you-missed-the-rock-afire-explosions-reunion-tour. Here's the music video from popular band MGMT featuring the band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZexg8sxyk. Maybe put more effort into improving the article rather than deleting it. There's no need to swear and get all angry, coming off totally biased doesn't help your case.Kiwisoup (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another new story from another reputable news source: http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/bloggytown/downtown-orlando-warehouse-that-housed-rockafire-explosion-animatronic-band-blows-up/. Why would all of these reputable news sources run articles about something that wasn't notable?Kiwisoup (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been open for a month now - and I don't see any benefits of it staying open any longer considering no further discussion has taken place since the third relist. The article has been significantly edited since the nomination and the current consensus appears to be keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Ayerst[edit]

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

Bio written like a advert. Don't believe she is notable and fails WP:ARTIST Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 August 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 ♔ 15:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She does have a large number of credits in independent publications and at least some independent coverage. This snippet doesn't show the text but google reports the following "Fiona Ayerst gets the perfect shot of one of these rarely observed hunters off the current-swept coast of Mozambique at Ponta Mamoli, shooting at exactly the right moment to catch the rippling skin on the muscular, supple back of the shark ..." A Diver's Guide to the Art of Underwater Photography. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree previous article incarnation was problematic, deserving of an AfD, but the problems have hopefully been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, with bogus sources removed, promotional material excised, and better sources added. She is an interesting subject: a lawyer who gave up her practice to become a full-time underwater photographer, who teaches, gives talks, promotes healthy oceans and shark conservation, gave a TED talk, and her amazing photo was featured in Time magazine, plus her photo made the cover of this magazine. What is lacking are a few solid sources which delve substantively on her work (although there are a few with some depth); however, the WP:BASIC rule says "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and in this case, there are twenty-six (26) sources, and combining them one could make a case that it is sufficient to meet the GNG. While most sources are tangential, except perhaps for this one and this one, the overall picture which emerges is a fearless nature photographer who has an excellent eye for images and who is committed to underwater photography of a (to me) dangerous subject -- sharks, plus some land animals too like cheetahs (her photo made Yahoo! News) that you won't see me having as a pet. Further, her numerous awards suggest she meets WP:ARTIST which says 4...(c) has won significant critical attention. Is she Jacques Cousteau? No, but still she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 16 August 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 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added independent sources collectively satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time as it merits a discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Dahiya[edit]

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

As an actor, minor roles only--most of the references merely mention his name. As for casting associate (not casting director), there's no notability in such a position. The articles about him are the typical press releases--they can't possibly be anything more, as he hasn't done anything important. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems hard to find relevant sources / references AAA3AAA (talk) 17:13, 18 August 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 20:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems like he meets the threshold for notability as an actor/casting director. Quis separabit? 18:53, 27 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally, I would look for favorably on a suggested WP:ATD and go with the redirect, but as there was a specific objection to the one redirect suggested, I'd say even that would fall outside of the consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Tiyaya[edit]

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

Non-notable song? Not my area of expertise I'm afraid, hence this nomination so that others with more knowledge can give opinions. I found this article as a "Random page" and began tidying it up, removing the worst excesses of hype and hero worship, but then decided that there was nothing of substance to make this notable. As I understand it, an individual song or single must be notable in its own right and there is no no indication of this here, other than it it was the song that made the band famous after being played on a college radio station. But, however famous the band, that does not confer notability on the song. Having said that, the band does not have a Wikipedia article; neither do the song's writers or producers. The total lack of references is also unhelpful. Emeraude (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turbulence Wild StreetDanz, or if that eventually gets deleted, to Streetboys. Strangely, I'm not even familiar with either the song or the band, but since the song doesn't appear to be too notable and hasn't really been covered much in sources, a redirect to its album's article should suffice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 17 August 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 20:37, 24 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I can't find decent sources either. I oppose redirecting this to Turbulence Wild StreetDanz since I can't find any refs for the album as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Curran (scientist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the first AfD, people hoped that this (still) assistant professor would turn out to be notable. Well, he hasn't. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 24 August 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}}.

Hi Abductive, the largest national society for Gerontology has awarded Dr. Curran the 2014 Nathan Shock Award. As such it would seem that the leaders of the field believe him to be notable AND to have made outstanding, arguably significant contributions to the field as defined by the award, "This distinguished honor is given for outstanding contributions to new knowledge about aging through basic biological research". https://www.geron.org/press-room/press-releases/2014-press-releases/371-curran-to-receive-gsa-s-2014-nathan-shock-new-investigator-award

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Eyeballing google scholar, h-index is ~11. The NYTimes and Wired coverage doesn't go far enough (in my opinion) to demonstrate the "significant impact" required by WP:ACADEMIC, and they're not sufficient for WP:GNG. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—In response to the remarks above with regard to notability the following national coverage of Dr. Curran's most recent publication in the high impact journal Cell Metabolism, Pang S and Curran SP. Adaptive capacity to bacterial diet modulates aging in C. elegans. Cell Metab. 2014 Jan 14; 19(1):221-31:

Preview in Cell Metabolism 2014 Jan 14; “Genetic Adaptation to Diet Preserves Longevity, Walhout A.J.M.
Featured in US News & World Reports, “What mutant worms can teach us about diets”, Shannon Firth, Jan 28, 2014. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/28/what-mutant-worms-can-teach-us-about-diets
Featured in Fox News, “Your diet may not fit your genes, scientists say”, John R. Quain February 12, 2014. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/17/your-diet-may-not-fit-your-genes/
Featured in The Scientist “Longevity Diet” Rina Shaikh-Lesko, June 1st, 2014 http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40056/title/Longevity-Diet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.153.171 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 98. The Cell Metabolism journal is certainly a good one, but according to google scholar the paper has received only only five citations. That's not surprising as the paper just came out, but that means we don't have a way of judging how significant the work is. The USN&WR and FN cites speak more to the competence of the public relations department than to the significance of the research. Wikipedia is very much a trailing indicator when it comes to judging scientific careers. Once it's absolutely obvious that Dr. Curran has had a significant impact in his field, then there will be no difficulty establishing the notability required for an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lesser Cartographies. agreed WRT "trailing indicator", but the consensus in the past was to keep this page. Since those discussions Dr. Curran has more publications, increased media coverage, and national level recognition has been achieved. Please note recent awarding of the Nathan Shock Award from the Gerontological Society of America. https://www.geron.org/press-room/press-releases/2014-press-releases/371-curran-to-receive-gsa-s-2014-nathan-shock-new-investigator-award. I state this to make it "absolutely obvious" (as requested) that Dr. Curran has indeed made a "significant impact in his field". It just seems odd and perhaps inappropriate to suggest removal of this page, in light of the continued success and national recognition of Dr. Curran's research group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.153.171 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—In a very short time, Dr. Sean Curran has been able to publish 3 papers in very high impact journals. Not only has this work been complemented on by top scientists in the field of aging and nutrition, but the translational nature of this work has been highlighted in the media as well in US News, Fox News, Science blogs, Nestle nutrition in addition to local news reports. More recently, in recognition of exceptional research and significant impact in the scientific field by, Dr. Curran has been awarded the prestigious Nathan Shock Award by the largest national Gerontological Society of America GSA. As a relatively new Principle Investigator, Dr. Sean Curran has certainly demonstrated quite a lot to prove the impact of his research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks20588 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 August 2014— Aks20588 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Notability is not gained by writing many mediocre m=papers h = 11 can mean 11 papers with 11 citations each, or , as here it can mean papers with 234, 188, 159, 105 , Three papers with citation count over 100 is notability in this or any other field. Any number of papers with 10 or 15 citations each would not be. People become notable from their best work -- in all fields, not masses of mediocre work. the h index ignores that. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I agree with the discussion above. Based on a national level award it is clear that notability has been obtained. DGG similarly makes an excellent point with regard to the presence of highly cited (>100 citations) publications.

Presence on F1000;Here is the basis of my opinion as "merits" were requested above. Faculty of 1000 aka F1000Prime provides the scientific community with Recommendations of the best research articles in biology and medicine from a faculty of global experts. F1000Prime filters the literature and highlights top articles as recommended by our faculty of ~6,000 expert scientists and clinical researchers, covering over 40 disciplines. Articles are rated and the faculty provide commentaries to explain why they recommend each article. Dr. Curran's past and current (five articles in total), including the research article (Pang and Curran), which is discussed above, are present on F1000prime and have received "very good" notations. I agree with the comments that media coverage is difficult to gage for significance. However, the fact that world-wide experts in the biological sciences have singled out Dr. Curran's work is a clear indicator of significance and the notability of the work, particularly among the research community.

http://f1000.com/prime/718243378
http://f1000.com/prime/717965662
http://f1000.com/prime/1083766
http://f1000.com/prime/1162791
http://f1000.com/prime/1007790

USCBioGero (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— In regards to contribution and impact in the field and scientific community, Dr. Curran has been recognized by his colleagues as having demonstrated success in these categories. This past summer, he was nominated by other scientific members to organize the Aging, Metabolism, Pathogenesis, Stress, and Small RNAs Conference for C. elegans, held in Madison, WI. The conference was well-attended and a great success. Scientists came from both the U.S. and internationally to share their work with each other. In light of the positive reception of this conference, it is clear that Dr. Curran has notable impact to the community. This further supports all evidence presented above in regards to keeping this article.

http://www.union.wisc.edu/ceaging/sponsor-exhibitor-info.html

68.181.41.24 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — 68.181.41.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 68.181.41.24 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep despite the apparent self-promotion and sockpuppet invasion here and the WP:WIKIPUFFERY and WP:PEACOCK promotional language on the article, some of which I just cleaned out. The h-index doesn't really tell the whole story: 11 isn't a big number for this area but it could mean 11 papers with citation numbers in the teens or (as in this case) four of them with over 100 citations. I think the highly cited research papers, together with the stories about his research in Wired and the New York Times, are enough. But given the sockpuppetry here and the pattern of promotional edits to the article by anonymous users, some level of protection may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David for the edits to streamline the page. The original author of the page Jriggs2012 is no longer at the University to assist in media relations. I have added two items to your streamlined version of the article. 1. most recent publication, another will be added once the embargo is lifted. 2. A sentence describing these new discoveries, which have resulted in the awards and media coverage discussed on this AfD page. USCBioGero (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that you are a university media relations employee? Then you should not be editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of your university. See WP:COI and in particular the parts there about paid advocacy, and limit your and your fellow media relations co-workers' contributions to the talk pages of the articles in question. If you are unwilling to stop this non-neutral editing on your own initiative, then I repeat my call for page protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, No you do not understand correctly. I am not a University media relations employee. Please read my comment above. The original author of this page Jriggs2012 was however in media relations and as I mentioned your edits were appropriate but you have unilaterally removed a significant portion of Dr. Curran's research portfolio, but it is unclear why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USCBioGero (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because edits to the article need to be made by people with a neutral point of view on the subject. Regardless of your job title, your user name (which by the way appears to violate Wikipedia's username policy makes it clear that you have a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well I am indeed at USC and a biologist and a gerontologist. I'm happy to modify my username. Can you provide me with an option to edit? Fortunately for the sake of this AfD page, User DGG and yourself are in the "keep" category. Please add any page protection you feel necessary to protect the integrity of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USCBioGero (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Hyndman[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, The Banner talk 12:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Now I may not be a expert on beauty pageants-but wouldn't miss Universe mean that she is at least somewhat notable that she was in it?Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim to notability backed up by a source. The subject represented her country at the highest level in her field - there are no beauty pageants ranked higher than Miss Universe or Miss World. A quick search found a few more usable sources: dailymail.co.uk, virginislandsnewsonline.com, caribbeanemagazine.com. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67:-yeah was thinking the same thing. As I said I'm no expert at these pageants but I do know that. (Hey Arnold was Mr. Universe even! And I use to watch Ms. USA when I was young...I was a teen so yeah there you go lol)-so I'll say Keep. Wgolf (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With a simple Google Test you find 12,900 hits. This boils down to just 179 unique hits, including Wikipedia, social media and related websites. The Banner talk 20:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, another source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if she was representing the US she'd be notable, why have a different standard for small countries? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even een Miss USA should prove notability. A title alone is not enough in my opinion. And in this case, she fails even a Google Test. The Banner talk 18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International 2014[edit]

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

Advertising. No independent sources that proves that this year version is notable. The Banner talk 11:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already multiple times removed through CSD (Log book) The Banner talk 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable pageant. Per [25] and [26]. Globalbeauties only covers notable pageants and Grand International seems to be very much so notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas The Banner talk 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Nothing approaching an independent reliable secondary source on the page as of this datestamp. Of the 117 citations, 90% are either the pageant website or a related Facebook page. Of the two sources offered by User:BabbaQ, one is the pageant website and the other is a blog. It appears the pageant has been going on for only two years, but in that time, I'd have thought something would appear in the press. Despite the international nature of the pageant, a reasonable online search finds virtually no mention (of 508K ghits, only 61 actual entries, none of which meets WP:IRS). gNews finds only 8 hits, mostly local pageant stuff. Based on a reasonable online search, I'm not convinced we could even create sourced pagespace on local qualifying events, much less the international contest. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have not been able to find anything even remotely approaching independent about this event. Lots of marketing, lots of astroturf, but a complete lack of any apparent outside interest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Juan Martín del Potro tennis season[edit]

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

While this article is in line with tennis notability guidelines (only players who have won a grand slam event are entitled to a player season article) it is logical to additionally require that a minimum amount (25–30) of matches are played in a season to validate an article. Due to Del Potro's injury this season does not meet that requirement. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Article types and recommended practices Wolbo (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable single season of an individual tennis player. As has been discussed in another recent AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season), the relevant notability standards for any article that is not governed by a specific notability guideline (see, e.g., WP:NSPORTS) are the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. At present, there is no specific notability guidelines that governs individual seasons or years of an athlete's career. Therefore, in order to be considered "notable" for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article, any such single season or year of an athlete's career must have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG, keeping in mind that this is not an article about Juan Martin del Potro (for whom there is already a stand-alone article) or the the 2014 tournaments in which he played (for which there are already stand-alone articles), but about "Juan Martin del Potro's 2014 season." In my estimation, that specific subject fails GNG for lack of significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was previously involved with discussions about the nominated article for deletion "2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season" Ihe fact that he's been out of the tour for over six months now through injury means no significant notable coverage of his "2014 tennis season" has been generated to warrant it's inclusion.--Navops47 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, He has had a slamless season. Sightless on tour is another reason. This is a nothing of a season for him, poor dude.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rover 45 v6[edit]

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

No need for this new article, already dealt with by the existing Rover 45 article Warren (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It all just seems like Original Research to me, Nothing much to merge and a pointless redirect. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not needed and content covered elsewhere. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 20:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

David M. Hale[edit]

The result of this discussion was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational 2014[edit]

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

Offshoot reliant on the recently AfD'd main page Miss Supranational. Although there are lots of sources for this upcoming event they are almost entirely (if not all) unreliable and primary sources - LOTS of Facebook sourcing. The main pageant has been deemed insufficently notable so why should we have an article for this upcoming event? Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before we take this AfD any further, we need to post a question at WP:RS/N first in order to establish whether http://www.globalbeauties.com used on a grand scale in here can be considered reliable. The paegant seems to be very well established out in the real world, at a glance. Poeticbent talk 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the page about the main pageant failed notability at AFD and has been deleted - so I am not sure there is any case for retaining the individual shows themselves too. Many of them appear to have been created by affiliates of the pageant rather than valid third parties. This article is basically one of a number of roots for which their tree has just been cut down so am not really seeing a compelling reason to retain it. Mabalu (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - I just had a look for Miss Supranational generally. Zero Google Books hits beyond the inevitable Wikipedia rehashes. On Highbeam. 43 articles, the VAST majority of which are from the Manila Bulletin and even there, very minimal mentions or mentions of a former contestant or winner being seen at the opening of an envelope. You'd think that it might have a FEW more articles if it was really so well established. It simply gets less and less notable the more I look for info on it. I mean, it's apparently going on right NOW - recently enough that it's getting hits (an epic earth-shattering 17 hits) on Google News - and those hits are barely even significant coverage. I bet Miss World doesn't get 17 hits on Google News when it's ongoing. Quick News search for Miss World pageant (to exclude stories like "Footballer will miss World cup match") and wow - 11,000 current Google News hits. From this all I can conclude is that Miss Supranational is some tacky little thing with delusions of notability. Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The article's reliable references are only passing mentions. Independent searching failed to find significant coverage for the pageant or its 2014 show. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Novato Unified School District. per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novato Charter School[edit]

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

elementary and middle schools must be notable, not just exist, to have an article. this doesnt meet notability requirements for a school below HS level. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novato Unified School Districtper standard procedure as documented at OUTCOMES.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per procedures cited by Kudpung. I can't find any sources proving that it is notable. BMIComp 17:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli soldiers killed in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

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

How do we know if this is complete and if it is true. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Possible incompleteness" is not the main argument for deletion. Many countries have lists in newspapers and books of their soldiers killed in wars, even superpowers in world wars, but we do not publish them in lists like this because Wikipedia is not a memorial. See a collection of records of World War 1 war dead, for instance. I do not see why different standards should apply to different countries. Edison (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MEMORIAL is actually another formulation of WP:NOTABILITY. Each or most individuals killed have received extensive coverage in Israeli media subsequent to their death. Israeli is much smaller and different than other Western countries and each death is a big deal. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' So the death of a soldier from that country is more inherently notable than the death of a soldier from some other country? Amazing. The first few soldiers from any country to die in a conflict get just as much coverage as these, and are also not notable. Edison (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails List of People criteria; the main rule is that people shall only be included in a list if they are individually notable or famous per BLP1. Not every soldier or even most soldiers who die in war are famous, not even by BLP1 standard, and the soldiers included here seem to overwhelmingly lack particular notability. Iselilja (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because as a group and as individuals these soldiers have not only received significant coverage, their deaths have influenced the ocurse of events, i.e. the large # of casualties is said to have influenced Israeli public opinion which, since it is a democracy, affects policy. To demonstrate how easy sourcing will be I will source one or 2 of them now. The editors voting to delete seem to object to this as ineligible on grounds that it is a list, however....ShulMaven (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Many Wikipedia articles: Assassinated Catholic priests in Guatemala, Foreign hostages in Iraq, Foreign hostages in Afghanistan, Foreign hostages in Nigeria, Foreign hostages in Somalia comprised of lists of otherwise non-notable individuals make it clear that there is no "rule": "that people shall only be included in a list if they are individually notable or famous per BLP1" Clearly there are numerous lists on Wikipedia in which being in the category puts you on the list. Membership in such a category makes articles notable. Look, for example, at Beheading video, a list of individuals several of whom are notable only for having been brutally beheaded (clicking leads in several cases only to articles about the beheadings, not to articles about the person. The sole argument for taking this article down (that lists must consist of Wikipedia-notable people - doesn't hold water. ShulMaven (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Turns out that there are enormous numbers of lists of otherwise non-notable people deemed WP-notable solely because of the specific manner of their deaths List of journalists killed during the Mahdist War, List of American police officers killed in the line of duty , List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom, some are lists of soldiers killed in other wars, List of footballers killed during World War II, List of cricketers who were killed during military service and many, many more such. Again, my point is that those arguing for deletion need to provide grounds for deletion other than a "rule" that has been long and widely ignored by Wikipedia editors. ShulMaven (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also check out List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2014. Note this is for one month and there is another list for each prior month. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, each of these other lists at least have some (arguably) significant trait in common, whereas just being soldiers killed in a non-war does not qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Uniformed police officers killed in the line of duty are article-worth while uniformed soldiers killed in the line of duty are not? Clarityfiend, do you truly want to defend that line of argument? My point here is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it is that rules - if they exist - need to be applied in an even-handed manner. Does not exclude all lists of people notable only for their participation in a single event. Rather, it includes all of the above lists - and these soldiers - under BLP1E or BIO1E ShulMaven (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A memorial page for a number of non-notable individuals whose deaths were newsy, non-notable events. If similar pages likewise violate our policies and guidelines, they too should be nominated, rather than allowing the mass of bad articles to grow. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too much media coverage focusing on this to delete solely because it resembles a memorial. Per WP:COMMONSENSE. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iselilja and Roscelese. Many similar articles (for instance, lists of US troops killed in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been deleted for these reasons. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over 20 million soldiers died in World War II: should Wikipedia have an article List of soldiers killed in the Second World War? I don't think so; therefore, it should not have this article either. SJK (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Hendrix[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer, as he fails to meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He fought for the World Boxing Federation Intercontinental light heavyweight title. Is that notable? If not, he fails to meet WP:NBOX. If he didn't have any amateur background. Băcăuan (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighting for the WBF does not show notability. Subject fails WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fappening[edit]

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

Clearly fails the GNG. CSD contested, not even going to try PROD, taking to AFD instead. Fbifriday (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Long-Droppert[edit]

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

Article does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Walid khalil (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played at the highest level (World Championships), satisfies WP:SPORTCRIT. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. I note "World Championships" is not mentioned in WP:SPORTCRIT so doesn't seem to satisfy it. I also note article doesn't satisfy WP:BASEBALL/N. I elliot (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for several reasons. Firstly the subject meets WP:GNG, just look at the 15 references already in the article – it clearly amounts to significant coverage. In addition, she competed at the Women's Softball World Championship which obviously meets the WP:SPORTCRIT criterion "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". And even if you argue softball falls under baseball in WP:NSPORTS, I'd say she meets criterion #2 of WP:BASE/N: "participated in a major international competition". Lastly, I note the creator of the article was not notified of this nomination, which is pretty poor form, especially when you can clearly see a fair deal of work has gone into the article. Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:GNG with sources provided and a quick search on the internet. Other sources: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Coverage is in multiple languages, and from at least four countries: USA, Australia, New Zealand and Netherlands. Satisfies WP:NSPORTS having competed at World Championships, the highest level competition since the sport was removed from the Olympic program. --LauraHale (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has played at the highest level of her sport. Regardless of how you lawyer WP:NSPORT, that's going to establish a presumption of notability. And the coverage is reasonable enough to give the article a pass on the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Notability is obvious per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jenks24 and LauraHale's excellent research and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jenks24 and LauraHale NickGibson3900 ^Talk 03:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward's School for Grown Ups[edit]

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

Non-notable television episode. Google search turns up no significant coverage in reliable sources. TV.com reference currently used in the article depends on user-generated submissions. 23W 04:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing this nomination, as a merger discussion is probably the best avenue for this. 23W 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 - long-running hoax, previously deleted several times under different names, see WP:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Constantin von Kasa-Hunyady and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCsociety. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel de Saint Nicholas[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Ricolfi-Doria. That deleted article says she was born as Erica Veronica von und zu Daun, married Count Andreas Kasa-Hunyady, and had a son called Gabriel Constantin, and she is the mother claimed for the present subject, "Gabriel de Saint Nicholas" (see its Ahnentafel), but I can find no reliable sources for a noble Hungarian family called "Kasa-Hunyady", which the Ahnentafel traces back for five generations. George, Crown Prince of Serbia, who is claimed as an ancestor of "Gabriel de Saint Nicholas", is usually reported to have had no children, while Felix Yusupov, who is also claimed as an ancestor, had no son called Felix, so it seems unlikely that a marriage between their children produced a daughter to make someone called Kasa-Hunyady a member of the the Serbian royal family. The online "Obituary of Princess Marie Yusupov Karageorgevich" which is relied on to establish this relationship is a web page reporting the death of such a princess, based on "saopšteno je danas iz kancelarije njenog unuka, grofa Kasa-Hunjadi" ("an announcement today from the office of her grandson, Count Kasa-Hunjadi"). But there was no such princess. Kasa-Hunjadi claimed in his announcement of her death that her husbands had included an Englishman called "Lord Alec Stratford Cunningham-Reid". If this is the Captain Alec Stratford Cunningham-Reid known to history, his two wives did not include any princesses. Another Serbian web page cited here is based on information from a Prince Gabriel, also described as Count Gabriel, and that claims that a Princess Helen was the illegitimate daughter of Prince George by Alexandra von Merenburg (another real person, as it happens), but illegitimate children are not royal highnesses. While no trace of a noble "Kasa-Hunyady" family can be found, there appears to be one man called Kása-Hunyadi Gábor, whose picture shows a close resemblance to that of Prince Gabriel Constantin. The whole article is surely a hoax, based on incorrect information fed to gullible web sites which are then used as references. Moonraker (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax: full details on the article's talk page.[35] DrKiernan (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've just found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Constantin von Kasa-Hunyady, so this should probably be speedied. DrKiernan (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete "Sources" do not back up content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Woodard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, never playing in any of the leagues, appears to be in a German based American football league although the listed team does not exist. (Note:original AfD removed due to page redirect/recreation) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Elmshorn is a real team, but they play in the German Football League 2, which is not a top-level league. I don't see enough non-routine coverage to meet WP:GNG either. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upon article creation it was listed as GFL (1 not 2), and could not find the team mentioned in that article. It has since been updated although it does not help with notability standards.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As EricEnfermero notes, the GFL2 is not a top-level league (it's not even the top-tier American football league in Germany), so Woodard doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON. His college career was also played at a lower tier (NCAA Division II) school. Finally, I am not finding significant coverage in mainstream media sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. The first source listed in the article is a press release from his college and therefore not independent. The second source is the same press release picked up by another site. The last two sources are blog mentions that do not appear to be reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable former college and minor league pro player of American football. Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) or WP:NGRIDIRON (never played a game in major pro league such as the NFL or CFL), and there is insufficient significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via WP:G3. I've never heard of this term being used in relation to works along this line and at best, this is a WP:NEOLOGISM that someone came up with one day. Normally works along these lines use the term "lolicon" or "shoutacon" to refer to anyone under the typical age of consent in Japan. I don't see where this term is frequently used enough in either English or Japanese to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia or even Wiktionary, so deleting it as WP:G3 or WP:A11 seems to be the only option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddlercon[edit]

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

Non notable terminology. Searching google with "とっぇこん" (Quotation marks included) provides less than two pages results, with most of them being repeats of the same link or this wiki article. Checking a few of the works listed in the article, the works themselves do not describe itself with that term. AFAIK the works themselves sound like one-shots or single volumes at best. The article itself is unsourced and gives the impression of original research or self published work. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3 this looks like a hoax. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I've tagged it per G3 since "Toddlercon" brings up nothing but /b/ related stuff . –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Woodard - page was moved during discussion and discussion continued under new title. This title deleted as redirect to deleted article. Michig (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice woodard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, never playing in any of the leagues, appears to be in a German based American football league although the listed team does not exist. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reeps One[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Awards is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Twice UK Beatbox champion, appeared at several major festivals and on BBC TV ([36]), with coverage in reliable sources: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gehennesis[edit]

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

non-notable album by non-notable band. Lacks citations, too L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nems (rapper)[edit]

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

Not notable. Albums not on important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Best is a sinngle short review of RapReviews, not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted (G12) by ThaddeusB. (non-admins closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers[edit]

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

Advertisement for trade organization,based on press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did indeed read as an advertisement, and for good reason - the page was basically copied from http://www.crest-approved.org/why-use-crest/index.html with a few words changed. I have speedied it under G12. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Drop[edit]

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

Music school which makes enough of a claim of notability to not be a valid A7, but doesn't properly source it, relying on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage. Delete unless the sourcing can be beefed way up. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All that I can find are promotional articles like this.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:27, 22 August 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 August 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Harrison VI[edit]

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

cannot find any references on this person. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say this needs comments from WP:USHIST. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know how to add this debate to projects. all i can do is add their template to the talk page. ill check if its there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does not gain notability just by having a notable father or by being rich, but he was a member of the Virginia state legislature, so there is some presumption of notability, i.e. that reliable sources likely exist to be a basis for an article. Google book search shows that there is enough coverage to verify his political claim to notability. The article is sorely in need of references being added, but some of the sources are only viewable as snippets, unfortunately, and there seem to be other individuals with the same name and Roman numeral. Edison (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing improvements are certainly needed here, but people who served in a state legislature are always notable enough for articles under WP:NPOL (although admittedly one of the referencing improvements here is the confirmation that he actually served in the House of Delegates — I have seen a few instances where an article creator hoaxed a legislative office that the topic never actually held.) So as long as that claim can indeed be verified as accurate, keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if his office can be sourced. The official website doesn't list former members that far back, and I haven't been able to dig up a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of video games notable for negative reception. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Control[edit]

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

Although this game did get two (emphatically negative) reviews, I can't help feeling that the reason it's so amateurish is that it's done by an amateur. It's available via Steam, but that's basically equivalent to being available via the iTunes store. It doesn't seem to have any real relevance. Is there anything more about this game? Doesn't look it. DS (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some more RSs: Rock Paper Shotgun, PCGamesN, The Escapist. That said, I do feel that this doesn't need an article here, but could be used towards something on the criticism of Steam or its Greenlight system (redirecting this to that). But I know we don't have a good target second there yet. Alternatively, there is List of video games notable for negative reception where there's no question this fits. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add (or merge) to List of video games notable for negative reception - it seems to fit WP:NVG with the sources available. Ansh666 03:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of video games notable for negative reception. The PCGamer and GameSpot reviews alongside some commentary from RPS and The Escapist are enough for the general notability guideline (not really anything else in a WP:VG/RS search), but they are scant of content or description apart from criticizing the platform that would allow this. If it were to have its own article, there would be very little about what little game this is. Hence, the negative reception article is a good target for a few sentences. czar ♔ 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and air control should redirect to Air traffic control. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workload queue[edit]

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

A google search did not establish notability, WP:N. Two pages link to this one, but information from these links provides little information explaining the topic of this article. There is no information on the article’s talk page. The article has no references, WP:RS. It is not possible to check that the information comes from a reliable source. I cannot determine if article could be improved rather than deleted since I lack expertise in this area. No results in google books. No returns from google news. No returns from google scholar. No returns on JSTOR. I can’t find any sources that would allow me to edit this article to make it even a stub. The article was created on 7/24/2014. I am unsure whether this has been enough time for the article creator/editor to improve it. bpage (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete—This is a descriptive phrase, not a term of art. No hits in google scholar or google books that can use used to establish notability. Second option would be a redirect to Queueing theory. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with LC, a search show that this isn't a common term and I was unable to find in depth sources discussing it. The phrase is sometimes used in job scheduling, but even there, it is not standard or even common. --Mark viking (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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