Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 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The result was withdrawn by nominator (self-closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Rug Retailers of America[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that lacks notability - cannot find siginificant coverage beyond press releases and passing mentions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 20:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a couple sources and removed 2 negative tags that no longer apply. The organization is significant in supporting an investment market in Oriental rugs, by its appraiser certification and its screening of reputable dealers. Since rugs can be hugely valuable, this is crucial and it would seem the organization is important, like a diamond appraisers network... hmm, see American Society of Appraisers about gem appraisers. Notable, sourced. --do ncr am 17:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find on the sources, Doncram - thanks. Looks good enough for me. Since no one else has commented, I'm withdrawing my nomination. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:06, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brisa Roché[edit]

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

Very unverified. I can't find anything reliable on this person. AllMusic has short notes on two albums, but they have notes on everything. I can't find a label for her albums either: seems like they went straight to iTunes. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't verify the existence of Soothe Me as an album, but The Chase was on EMI France and Metro Blue (a Blue Note Records sub-label) and the other albums on French label Discograph (fr:Discograph). Coverage around the time of The Chase album release included half a page in Billboard (12 November 2005, p.32), and reviews in Paste, Bust and CMJ New Music Report. Maybe there was more coverage in France but I wouldn't know where to look, or whether it would be available online or not. Peter James (talk) 20:49, 28 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 (orate) @ 20:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without verifiable sources it looks like this article should be deleted. Is it possible to garner the attention of the French Wikipedia community to provide better sources? Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:34, 15 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 04:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge (telenovela)[edit]

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

The telenovela is not yet confirmed, there is no internet promotional, or is due for release, and the current item information is very little. I recommend that the item will be created in 2015 or when the soap is actually confirmed. Until all there are only rumors. Damián (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Amor no es como lo Pintan (2015 telenovela)[edit]

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

The telenovela is not yet confirmed, there is no internet promotional, or is due for release, and the current item information is very little. I recommend that the item will be created in 2015 or when the soap is actually confirmed. Until all there are only rumors. Damián (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:FFILM applies here, because this lacks reliable coverage in the pre-production phase. Once significant developments have been made and reliable sources and coverage become available, the article could be recreated. Upjav (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are insufficient reliable sources confirming production to warrant an article at this juncture.-- danntm ^T _C 05:37, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Llambias Clatworthy[edit]

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

Article deleted via PROD but undeleted following Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Joseph_Llambias_Clatworthy. Article is written by the subject's son. Claim to notability is a single painting given to the Imperial War Museum by the artist. There's also a single news article, largely based again on Clatworthy's son "keen that his father's legacy be continued". Insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject needs to show evidence of better coverage from reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST.-- danntm ^T _C 22:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:15, 19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mujeres de Arena[edit]

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

The telenovela is not yet confirmed, there is no internet promotional, or is due for release, and the current item information is very little. I recommend that the item will be created in 2015 or when the soap is actually confirmed. Until all there are only rumors. Damián (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming the nominator is correct, and nobody's contradicted them yet, this remains an idea/rumor for a series and is not notable for any other reason. —innotata 07:21, 16 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 04:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cadena de Pecados[edit]

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

The article was created in February 2014, and so far, there is not much information on the internet soap opera, have not even started their recordings, no promotional or trailer on the internet, nor has release date Damián (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 20:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powerdriver[edit]

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

A worthy research initiative. But is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Research projects are rarely notable and this one is no exception. the article contains the (for this kind of projects usual) exaggerations: for the consortium they list a number of important sounding institutions. The reality of course is that the consortium consists of some people that work at these institutions. The institution signs the agreement, but that it does for every grant./ Compare this with the US where, for example, MIT would sign for any grant that NIH gives to one of its researchers. If that person collaborates with somebody at Yale, that university, too, would sign for its researcher. But obviously nobody would talk about an MIT-Yale "consortium". Apart from that, the article contains the usual dose of (again usual) obfuscating Eurospeak/managerspeak and lofty promises about what it will accomplish. Some of the participants in this project may well be notable. Some of their products may be notable, too. But projects like this go thirteen in a dozen. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your points about the institutions, that there may be only one or a few people from each institution working on the project, but this is the case with all projects, regardless of which institution they are from. Perhaps adding the results now the proejct is over would help? The technology that this project is working on (energy harvesting) is considered to be a disruptive technology and therefore I believe it is notable. Sarahchallis (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they developed notable technology, then that could have its own article. Including relevant stuff developed by others. But I see no indication at all that this project in itself is notable. At any given point in time, there will be thousands of such projects going on everywhere in the world. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 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) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounded like a cool research project. But what is not cool is the lack of independent reliable sources covering the project. Furthermore, there is no policy, guideline, or practice to have article for every research project, and I see no reason to change that here. -- danntm ^T _C 05:54, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian T. Kennedy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Most references are to organization individual runs. Almost all published works are published through organization individual runs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.165.19 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 07:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the subject has written articles, and is the head of a notable organization, the individual themselves does not appear to have received significant coverage from multiple secondary or tertiary reliable sources to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Furthermore as the subject is not notable for a single event a redirect to an event does not qualify as an alternative. All this being said, I would not object to recreation of this article if it can be shown using reliable source that the subject meets GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:56, 8 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) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Kennedy is obviously a prolific writer. However, currently, there is not independent significant coverage of him.-- danntm ^T _C 05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThere seems to be no independent publishing of this writer. More references to published sources would be preferable to linking back to articles he writes for his own organization. Dandy-viking 21:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per comments above and the very POV-y text you see upon only glancing at the article. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:16, 19 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Singh (chef)[edit]

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

Having written this back in 2008, I no longer believe this meets WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but better source DocumentError (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several sources via HighBeam. Two are independent reliable and in-depth sources. Thus, WP:GNG is met. There were also over 100 reliable sources on him with minor coverage. There are enough sources to write a nice article if someone wants to do it. I am One of Many (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:10, 4 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) 22:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the better sources included by I am One of Many. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:32, 15 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saya gold avenue[edit]

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

Non-notable housing development BMIComp 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, several anonymous editors have been edit warring since the article's creation over which URL gets to be the official link for the development. Makes it even more obvious that the likely purpose of the article is to promote their websites. BMIComp 16:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • It appears to be an advertisement for me while failing general notability guidelines where the article notability requires verifiable evidence. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:01, 7 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) 23:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be advertisement of a non-notable project.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 00:26, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Getz[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability at WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Cited references at the article are not from Independent Reliable Sources and do not amount to significant coverage. In a search of Google and Google News I found social media and a lot of other people by the same name. Google Scholar citations are not sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC. MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Centerwatch. I created this article and there is only one source about the subject of this article, in Nature, and I assert that is a good source but just that one is not enough. I just wrote to the subject of this article to ask him if he has otherwise ever been covered, but I expect that the answer will be no. The content here is still good, it just does not establish notability, and could be used to develop the article about Getz' organization. I regret posting this article without establishing notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with a merge to CenterWatch, where there is already some information about him. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's any better. It too is mostly based on self published sources. Also, there's the question of whether the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation involvement matters more. From what I've seen, though, a biography would not have the requisite sources, while there just might be material to justify articles on one or both of the organizations. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and should be deleted. LeadSongDog is correct about Centerwatch also; if someone proposed that for deletion it would not be able to be saved with information from a Google search, I think. Five days ago Getz replied to my email saying he would get more information to me but so far he has failed to do so. If I get more information from him then I might re-make this article. Could I have this WP:USERFIED to user:bluerasberry/Ken Getz? I might request the same for Centerwatch if it were proposed for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 4 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) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Easily fails WP:GNG --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF and there is no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahjoub Omer Bashary[edit]

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

No indication of notability JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this man good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he might have been a good man, there is neither allegation nor proof that he was notable. We are not a website of good men. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 10 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) 22:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming (fairly safely) that the "President Abood" mentioned in the article was in fact Ibrahim Abboud, the first military ruler in Sudan after its independence, there is a plausible though weak claim for notability in the article (it would still depend on a clearer description of the subject's role). However, I can't even find any verification (excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Having said that, the period under discussion is fifty years or so ago, and Sudanese matters have rarely been discussed in any detail in American or British media - so there is a definite possibility of systemic bias, with relevant sources never having got online. But to keep this, we do need sources. PWilkinson (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources turn up allowing us to verify the information here. There's a possible claim of notability, but no means of checking it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 19 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). While this is being closed as no consensus due to an overall lack of participation after two relistings, this could be boldly redirected if editors deem this to be appropriate. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted House (2005 film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a tough one, and I did find the deadlink archived ay the Wayback Machine... but it is a sales site that pretty much let's us know this non-English Khmer language film does at least exist. But what with the search term of "hanunted house" being so common, we need to refine our parameters:

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

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

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

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

It's quite possible that Khmer language sources may exist, but we will need Cambodian Wikipedians to find and offer them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:19, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campro_Production#Filmography, but leave the article history. The problem here is that coverage is most likely in Khmer. I did find one lone English source, which makes me slightly optimistic about sources in other languages. If a Khmer speaker can come in and find sources I'm willing to change my opinion, but otherwise this shoudl redirect with history. I figure leaving the history will give a Khmer fluent editor the chance to improve the article if they can provide sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 5 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) 22:50, 12 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 04:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles, the Gentleman Thug[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Viz comic strips. It looks like someone already tagged it for a merge; a redirect or merge seems appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 28 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 17:12, 4 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) 22:50, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar (demogroup)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Has stayed far too long without sources.Charles (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 4 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) 22:49, 12 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JoGa[edit]

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

This almost sounds like a hoax (making a film coming in 2020!) , the fact that none of the songs have any links as well. Wgolf (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsigned artist with a demo, falling well short of WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources to be found. Googling "joga dopeland" gets a few hits for social networking sites and Spotify but nothing independent, "joga new jersey" nothing but false positives (mostly about gymnastics), and "the second nature band" nothing usable (not surprisingly, there are a lot of bands by that name). The sources in the article consist of his own site, and a couple of reviews of his self-released album which say nothing about him personally. Even the scanty biographical details in the lede cannot be independently substatiated. — Gwalla | Talk 20:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 4 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) 22:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, this article is not supported by reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:33, 15 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pirosmani (journal)[edit]

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

Ephemeral journal that existed for only 3 years. Only reference is to YouTube. No indication of any notability, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Edcolins (talk) 11:11, 6 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) 22:48, 12 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Miller (writer)[edit]

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

Okay originally I had this as a prod but just noticed this Tumblr link on here. This sounds like she might be pretty important, but so far just 2 stories and no links to either. I think a userfy might be the best. Though from what I can tell she is pretty young, so it might be too soon also. (she does sound impressive from just one line though) Wgolf (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She will have time to be notable in the future. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Sounds like she is doing well for herself, but that doesn't translate to notability (yet). Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 6 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) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although previous article was seriously wanting in terms of text, references, so hopefully it is upgraded as per WP:HEYMANN. Her debut novel was well received, winning plaudits from major newspapers and garnering sufficient critical attention to establish her as a major writer. Sources include Publishers Weekly, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR listing, Wall Street Journal, NY Times Editors' choice, LA Times, even Oprah Book Club, Star-Tribune, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, adding up to easily meeting WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) And she also meets the WP:AUTHOR on point 4 letter (c) which says "The person's work ... (c) has won significant critical attention".---Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the persuasive arguments and citations provided by Tom. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:40, 15 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold M. Mitchum[edit]

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

Martial artist who fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. There's a lack of significant independent coverage and his only claims to notability appear to be his rank and membership in a hall of fame, both of which are not considered valid indicators of notability for martial artists.Mdtemp (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I have to agree with the nominator. I don't see significant independent coverage nor do I see claims that would meet the criteria for notability as a martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article to show he meets GNG or WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:48, 12 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) 22:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant independent coverage of subject. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:43, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Miniatures Page[edit]

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

Webpage without a clear assertion of notability. The fact that the founder worked for a notable company does not transfer notability to the site. Further, the only independent reliable sources cited are directory listings, so the article fails the WP:GNG requirement of substantial coverage in independent sources. (There are also citations to forum posts at the site, which are neither reliable nor independent.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:GNG as there is no independent coverage. Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : nn If references to its masthead are not reliable, then the entire thing needs to go. Crow the Saint (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 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) 22:46, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isshin-ryū Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Organization with no significant independent coverage. The only independent coverage is appearing in a list of martial arts halls of fame. Article was kept at previous AfD discussion six years ago because people felt it had potential even though it was lacking sources. Nothing has changed.Mdtemp (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - of interest only to Isshin-ryū. If every single martial arts style had a list of important members we would be swamped.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent coverage except for being mentioned in a list. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:48, 7 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) 22:45, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Erie Counseling and Treatment Services[edit]

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

Not notable corporation article written by an SPA. Trivial and few mentions in sources. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organization is not large or influential enough to meet notability standards, and has no other reasons for notability. --Gccwang (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthy organisation, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 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) 22:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 17 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 Motionless_in_White. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Motionless[edit]

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

Not notable outside the singers band Motionless in White, the singer alone (outside the band) has a lack of coverage and has not participated with any other notable acts. SilentDan (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Motionless in White, since he does not appear to have any independent notability from the band, but is still a plausible search term. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 11:44, 8 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) 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SilentDan297. SmileBlueJay97 talk 20:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - With his list of guest appearances, his article should, at a minimum, be redirected with history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:01, 20 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan Kazem[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP. Do not believe he meets GNG, BASIC or any other notability criteria. J04n(talk page) 22:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry - although he has won a Golden Thimble award, this is an excellent student achievement rather than the Parisan De d'Or awarded to those at the top of their game. I did find two very nice quality 2006 sources but both in relation to the Parson's student presentation - a Women's Wear Daily article on Highbeam and a surprisingly good American Superstar Magazine piece - I'm amazed to find such a high quality piece of journalism on a "Superstar Mag" site! A passing mention in the New York Times. All from 2006 and I see nothing from afterwards to show ongoing coverage or that he passes general notability criteria. Mabalu (talk) 11:19, 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 withdrawn for procedural reasons. This is not an article, and does not belong at AfD. It is currently being discussed at WP:DRN#Russo-Ukrainian War. Please comment there, rather than here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

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

Russo-Ukrainian War is a DAB page trying to establish a new name pointing to 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine.

I'm not involved in this topic, I just stumbled across a link to it. The page history shows revert warring. A current Google News search on "Russo-Ukrainian War" turns up 6 hits, including "Russo-Ukrainian war of words", an obscure opinion-editorial pages, a paywall, and some future-tense uses (implying that the term doesn't currently apply). None of the terms inspire confidence that we should be appyling this term.

I'm a big fan of the idea that Wikipedia should follow sources, Not Lead. I think it's a Bad Idea to let arguments inside 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine to spillover into spawning DAB pages trying to establish a new name for the conflict, a new name that isn't currently being used (at least not in English sources). Alsee (talk) 22:25, 12 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 moot. Already deleted per G5. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Coci[edit]

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

There is nothing to make the person notable. Having a number of children, while one of them became latter a local official isn't enough to warrant an article. Also, nothing about him in gbooks.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've deleted the article under WP:CSD#G5 as it was created by a confirmed sock account in violation of their block.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:18, 16 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hostel Returns[edit]

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

This film does not start production until next month; even when production starts, per WP:NFF "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released... should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" and I do not think that is the case here. The author of this article listed himself as the film's publicity manager (since changed to technical manager). The time for an article is after release, if and when there has been independent critical comment; Wikipedia is not here to provide advance publicity for unreleased films; Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – self promotion; WP:NFF— Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 07:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy this sourcable topic per failing WP:NFF and simply being TOO SOON, but NOT a speedy... per the otherwise addressable issues of tone or style. Send author to WP:NF and MOS:FILM. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:03, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeNique Ford[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH; did not play professionally in the regular season; did not win any national awards or have significant national attention as a Div. I-AA college athlete either. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hey I haven't played professional football either, can I have a free Wikipedia page? Clearly fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable small college football player. Fails the specific notability guideline of WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not finding sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Also, playing on a practice squad in the Arena Football League doesn't satisfy the standards of WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 19 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 Deleted (G7) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anupap Buachand[edit]

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

Cinematographer who has only worked on 2 films. Nothing else seems notable about him, though the film might be notable in Thailand. Wgolf (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete without prejudice - no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, in fact no reliable sources whatsoever on a BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magsad Isayev[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a claim that the Azerbaijan Premier League is fully pro, a claim not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NFOOTBALL players who have played in a fully professional league are notable. Seyidov played in Neftchi Baku which is a clup of Azerbaijan professional leage. The list of fully professional leagues in WikiProject Football is not completed (It's mentioned there). Azerbaijani football clubs (including Neftchi) play in UEFA European League (even in group stage), which says that Azerbaijan football league is fully professional.Interfase (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding full professionalism of a league based on the success of its clubs in other competitions is original research. Unless the claim that the league is fully pro can be supported by a reliable source, that claim carries no weight. (See closing remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarlan Guliyev for a more detailed explanation.) Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added Azerbaijan to the list. Because there are two professional football divisions in Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan Premier League and the Azerbaijan First Division[1] --Interfase (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source has been rejected several times in discussions at WT:FPL since the EFPL has ambiguous membership criteria, meaning this source does not actually confirm the league's status one way or the other. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austria also is not professional then. There is the same source. Some countries has even their own national associations as a source. Do you know even which criteria should be use to consider any league as professional, which source is reliable for you? --Interfase (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the Austrian Bundesliga is not relevant here. The issue with EPFL is not one of reliability but of ambiguity. Despite the organisation's name, there is nothing on the EPFL website to indicate that it actually has any professionalism requirements for member leagues. What would be needed for inclusion at WP:FPL is a source that unambiguously states that all footballers in the Azerbaijan Premier League are payed a living wage. Given that in several discussions at WT:FPL over several years no one has been able to produce such a source, I highly doubt it exists. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has every produced a source that shows it isn't fully professional either. Everyone agrees that every other full member of the EPFL is fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant, there is no concensus that membership of the EPFL means that a country's league is fully professional? You may wish to refresh your knowledge of simple logical fallacies. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacies has nothing to do with it. For most leagues that aren't fully professional, it's easy enough to find sources that indicate that the league isn't fully professional. Comments in the media about the players other jobs. Lack of money for players, etc. Instead here we have a bunch of foreigners deeming that the league isn't fully professional without any evidence ever being found on that. Whlie this doesn't support a keep, it does raise questions of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with it. You said "these leagues are therefore this league must also be"! WP:FPL is a consensus generate list which explicitly states in its first sentence that it is a list of those "known" to be FPL and those "known" not to be. This means the list is inherently incomplete. Nobody is saying it is not fully professional, it doesn't appear in the list of known non-FPL leagues for example, merely there have been no sources uncovered that indicate that it is. No Bias at all, simply a list that is incomplete. Why not take it upon yourself to delve into Azeri sources and try to come to a conclusion one way or the other. Fenix down (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to delve into sources - and found nothing conclusive one way or another. There's a lot to indicate it's fully professional - but no conclusive proof one way or another. I don't see how it isn't WP:BIAS, and I very much doubt that we would have this knowledge-gap if we were dealing with an English-speaking country like Wales, New Zealand, or Ireland, for which we've found plenty of proof. At the same time, we dismiss the EPLF reference for one country because it's not conclusive, but we accept it for another, because "we all know it's fully professional"? That's a perfect example of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 15 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CTH Public Company Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only been on the go since 2009. No notability whatsoever. A simple ISP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete - The article seems to be promotional. Fevrret (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have sufficient Thai language sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Famous cable company. Connects to 2.5 million households according to [2] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also own English Premier League right [3] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Folk really don't say that companies are really famous, except perhaps Apple. Looking at the sources, No 6 is a private file and is broken; 1 and 2 are index entries at Bloomberg (it's job to provide info to investors, just list the company details with investors); 3 discusses a business partnership with a TV streaming service; 4 is also a partnership deal; 5 is also a partnership announcement. So none of them, closely read, show notability, merely the verification that the company exists, NOT that it is notable. It is simply not notable. It is not even an old established. scope_creep talk 18:19 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment another source [4] from reputable newspaper The Nation (Thailand) indicates that CTH is among the top 2 pay TV operator in Thailand, with TrueVisions at about 2 million viewers and CTH at 2.5 subscribers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has significantly shaken up the industry in recent years. The Premier League broadcast rights is a big deal and has been covered extensively by the media. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 17 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 The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2 . -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Weight of Chains 2[edit]

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

This seems to be part of the fundraising exercise for this film which is still ongoing.[5] I've removed some copyvio but the official website still says production is to continue into2013, last year. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are Wikipedia articles "fundraising exercies"? Every film made by Boris Malagurski is funded through donations and the donations are open well after the films are on festivals, in cinemas and on television. Aside from that, there are credible sources regarding this film, one of them is the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans, Politika. You make it seem like the only source is the website. Sure, the article should be expanded from other sources, but deletion? I see no reason. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it, but someone will recreate this page in January 2015. 'Cause premiere will be in January 2015. --Kepkke (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and it's not like there aren't any articles about upcoming movies on Wikipedia. I think this article should be kept, I see no reason for deleting it. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2 or to director at Boris Malagurski#Sequel where this sequel is already mentioned. Allow undeletion or recreation when WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'm willing to drop this if we can be sure the redirect won't be undone. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respect it if that's the final decision for now (though I disagree with a redirect and think the article should be expanded with more sources), of course, but I'd like to know when it would be possible to write the article again. When the film comes out? --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2 until the movie actually comes out, when it will be possible to determine its notability. 23 editor (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see the point in an article about a film whose 'imminent release' has been announced for a long time, yet whose own website still says it WILL BE released in 2013. Any independent commentary is unlikely to be forthcoming for a long time, there is still little available for the first film, three years after its release. Just to note, that redirects from The Weight of Chains have previously been mysteriously undone several times. At present, much of the text is - or at least was - copy vio from the WoC2 website. Additionally, all info on the article page (interviewees etc.) is already on both the directors page and some of it on The Weight of Chains page, any new info, such as reliable release date, can easily be added to those pages. Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

btw … if redirect is decided, the appropriate place would be [6], since this is where this content is already duplicated.Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon for an article (is an unreleased film), to have a mention of it in The Weight of Chains and Boris Malagurski seems sufficient for now. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. IJA (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2, per User:MichaelQSchmidt and since this is a viable search term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 20 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 tending towards keep thanks to improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Carthage[edit]

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

WP:Hoax: as far as I know there is no evidence of a Jewish presence in North Africa/Iberia before the CE/destruction of the Second Temple, i.e. centuries after the end of the Punic empire and civilisation.

As to this assertion: "Therefore Andrew Zelev believes that the Carthaginians and Phoenicians - are Jews", very weired, given that Carthaginians were Phoenicians in origin, therefore Canaanites, which according to the bible are sons of Ham and enemies of the Jews.

In all, this article seem to be based on little more than WP:OR. Tachfin (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The article is a very poor attempt at Original Research and almost entirely nonsense. However there was a Jewish presence in Carthage later on (1st to 3rd centuries CE) and if someone wants to write a proper article on that it would be fine. Nothing in the present text is salvageable, though, even as a useful stub. Zero^talk 16:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will better under "Jews in Roman Africa" since Carthage usually refers to Ancient Carthage (the state). Also keep in mind that we already have History of the Jews in Tunisia --Tachfin (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value there - is all very poor OR. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator of the Article was not notified of this discussion.Tachfin I invite you to do this.--Shrike (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is NOT a "hoax" nor is it "OR" by any means, just because it may sound strange does not mean it should be demeaned, as the nominator wrongly assumes. First of all the historical facts (ALL from WP articles): 1 The ancient Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) (1020 BCE–930 BCE) & Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) (930 BCE–720 BCE) were founded and existed from 1020 and 930 BCE until about the 720s BCE 2 on the same Mediterranean Sea coast as Carthage, developed from a Phoenician colony of the 1st millennium BC, 3 Carthage was founded by Canaanite-speaking Phoenician colonists from Tyre (in modern Lebanon) under the leadership of Queen Elissa or Dido, 4 into the capital of an ancient empire until the Romans gained the upper hand by invading Africa and defeating Carthage at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. 5 Following the Third Punic War, the city was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC. 6 However, the Romans refounded Carthage, which became the empire's fourth most important city and the second most important city in the Latin West. Thus (from hereon my words): 7 It was not about "Jews" but about ISRAELITES (=Jews) that have the connection with Carthage just as they had a connection with all prats of the Mediterranean world and certainly Jews were in all parts of the Roman Empire from its earliest days. 8 Thus the nominator has done his homework. He should have Googled things like Israelites and Carthage to see what comes up, here is one thing from the (a) Jewish Virtual Library [7]: "CARTHAGE, ancient city in North Africa near the modern Tunis; founded in the 9th century B.C.E. by Phoenicians. There is no evidence of Jews in Carthage during the Punic period (before 146 B.C.E.); on the other hand, a number of modern scholars maintain that the expansion of the Phoenicians from Tyre and Sidon owed something of its impetus to the collaboration of Hebrews from the Palestinian hinterland. Substantial Jewish settlement is known only from the time of the Roman Empire. Its existence is shown from inscriptions (mainly on tombstones) and from literary sources, especially those of the Church Fathers. The majority of Jewish inscriptions from Carthage (discovered in a cemetery excavated near the city) show that the language of its Jews was Latin, although a few inscriptions are in Hebrew. The *menorah is common, and some of the tombs are decorated with wall paintings. The city is also mentioned in the Talmud...BIBLIOGRAPHY: Monceaux, in: REJ, 44 (1902), 1–28; N. Slouschz, Hebraeo-Phéniciens et Judéo-Berbères (1908); idem, La civilisation hébraïque et phénicienne à Carthage (1911); Juster, Juifs, 1 (1914), 208, n. 8; G. Rosen, Juden und Phoenizier (19292); Mieses, in: REJ, 92 (1932), 113–35; 93 (1932), 53–72, 135–56; 94 (1933), 73–89; Baron, Social2, 1 (1952), 176, 374; Y. Levi, Olamot Nifgashim (1960), 60–78; M. Simon, Recherches d'histoire judéo-chrétienne (1962), 30–87." (b) From the Jewish Encyclopedia [8] :"Jews in Carthage. The fact that the Talmud mentions the Carthaginian teachers of the Law, R. Abba, R. Isaac, and R. Ḥana, proves that Jews were living in that city, although Frankel, without reason, takes it to mean an Armenian city ("Mebo," pp. 6b, 66a), and Kohut a Spanish city ("Aruch Completum," vii. 220). It is evident from the introduction to the work "Adversum Judæos," ascribed to Tertullian, that Jews were living in Carthage; and they are found still further west (Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., iii. 26, note 64). Münter ("Primordia Eccl. Afric." p. 165, Copenhagen, 1829) mentions a certain R. Jisschak (the one in the Talmud?). The Jews of Africa (see Africa) are often referred to in the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine; and in recent times there has been found in Gamart, near the city of Carthage, a great Jewish necropolis with many inscriptions in Latin (see Catacombs). From the conquest of Carthage by the Vandals (439) to the subjection of the latter by the Byzantines (533), the holy vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem, that had been taken from Rome, were kept in Carthage (Evagrius, "Scholasticus," Fragment iv. p., 17; Procopius, "Bellum. Vand." ii. § 9). The Jews then passed under the rule of Justinian, who instructed Solomon, the governor of Africa, to transform the synagogues as well as the churches of the Arians and the Donatists into orthodox churches (Novellæ, No. 37). Solomon, however, was soon compelled to flee from the rebellious Africans...Bibliography: Movers, Phönicier, ii. part i. 142, 144, 350; Böttger, Lexikon zu den Schriften des Flavius Josephus, p. 79; Neubauer, G. T. p. 411; Krauss, Lehnwörter, ii. 572; Delattre, Gamart ou la Nécropole Juive de Carthage, Lyons, 1895; Rev. Et. Juives, xliv. 2-28." (c) (from) Google Books [9]: "Geoffrey D. Dunn - 2004 - ‎Religion: We know there was a Jewish community in Carthage from the funerary inscriptions at Gamart, a cemetery a few miles north of Carthage, close to the coast..." 9 Talking of Google Books, doing a search on that for Israelites and Carthage and Kingdom of Israel and Carthage yields all sorts of stuff, a lot relating to how some Christian scholars as well look at the topic, too many to mention here. So, 10 Bottom line, there are plenty of WP:N & WP:RS & WP:V that back up the validity of this article, and hopefully will be added to it, that if anything, prove it's a very important topic that should not make anyone nervous but should rather pique the curiosity of intelligent readers who wish to know more about the ancient world and about Jewish history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is debating the fact that there was a Jewish presence in Roman Africa (i.e. after the CE), it is in fact the premise of this nomination, nor is anyone denying the fat that Punics were Phoenicians in origin & therefore are related/connected to Jews/Israelites in some way. The problem with this article is that it alludes to a Jewish presence in the Punic empire and Punic Carthage, and even goes as far as claiming that Punics were Jewish/Israelites. (a claim which is reminiscent of hundreds of other WP:Fringe views about the ten lost tribes of Israel).
If there is enough material about "Jews in Roman Carthage" to justify a split from History of the Jews in Tunisia and History of the Jews in the Roman Empire then let's have an article about that (i.e. "Jews in the Roman province of Africa" or "Jews in Roman Carthage"). But to a have a misleading fork to nest dubious, OR, hoax/fringe views as it looks currently is not encyclopaedic at all.

--Tachfin (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I write above, there is enough literature on Jews in Roman Carthage to populate a small article, though Tachfin is correct in saying we should first consider why History of the Jews in Tunisia isn't enough. But that is not the point. This article as it stands tries to sell us useless OR about Jews in Punic Carthage, for which there is no evidence at all. To quote the Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol 4, p69, "The earliest evidence of Jews in Carthage and the surrounding area appears in inscriptions dated to the second century. Although some have suggested that Jews were there as early as the Punic period, there is no archaeological evidence or literary reference before the second century [CE] to support the idea." Incidentally Queen Dido is a legend not mentioned in any known source less than half a millennium after her supposed life. Zero^talk 02:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Thanks for the worthwhile comments. Just some points: 1 It is surely splitting hairs to put things about one famous subject into an entirely different framework unrelated to that subject. 2 Even your sources do say "Although some have suggested that Jews were there as early as the Punic period, there is no archaeological evidence or literary reference before the second century [CE] to support the idea" and as you know archeology alone is not the final arbiter of historical data although it helps, but if there are scholars who note something then it is just as valid to us writing an encyclopedia that reports this in a NPOV way. That is called reliable scholarship. 3 Your point about "Queen Dido" applies to many subjects relating to ancient history. (a) Take for example the histories about Alexander the Great much of what was written about him was put into writing hundreds of years after his death. (b)Same thing for what we know about Socrates and (c) same thing about much of Roman history, there is always historical revisionism taking place by later rulers and authorities who perhaps/often have an axe to grind and want to re-write or re-create or expunge what really happened. (d) It happens in our own day and age all the time! (e) No less a scholar than Josephus is famous/notorious from re-writing Jewish and Roman history from the point of view of his Flavian sponsors. 4 So there is nothing out of line when this hits us in regards to the history of Carthage and the connections it must have had and did as mentioned by reliable scholars with the Israelites and the Jews. Just dig deep enough for the scholarly information and you will unearth it, just as archaeologists do. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@IZAK: Sorry, but your analogies are not very good. Even though lots of sources about Alexander the Great and Socrates are dubious, scholars treat them as historical figures about whom one can seek the facts. Queen Dido, on the other hand, has a similar status to Romulus and Remus; few if any modern scholars take these creation stories as literal truth. But this is off-topic, since we are not arguing about the article on Queen Dido. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. Show us that there is enough scholarly material about Jews in Punic Carthage and we can have an article on it. I'll even help. As it stands, I look more favorably on an article "Jews in Roman Carthage", which could include a few sentences listing claims and counterclaims about earlier history. Zero^talk 08:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: As with most subjects that I do know a lot about, I still do not have all the knowledge and that is why I turn to Google to help me out. I don't have any help, I am a one-man-band! I have cited two sources that more than piqued my curiosity to verify my curiosity, see the words in bold, one from a. The Jewish Virtual Library [10]: "CARTHAGE, ancient city in North Africa near the modern Tunis; founded in the 9th century B.C.E. by Phoenicians. There is no evidence of Jews in Carthage during the Punic period (before 146 B.C.E.); on the other hand, a number of modern scholars maintain that the expansion of the Phoenicians from Tyre and Sidon owed something of its impetus to the collaboration of Hebrews from the Palestinian hinterland. Substantial Jewish settlement is known only from the time of the Roman Empire. Its existence is shown from inscriptions (mainly on tombstones) and from literary sources, especially those of the Church Fathers..." And b. From the Jewish Encyclopedia [11] --- note that the Jewish Encyclopedia name for their article is the same as the one we have here i.e. Jews in Carthage that proves that the creator of the article was not "hoaxing" around when he used that title! --- Thus: "Jews in Carthage. The fact that the Talmud mentions the Carthaginian teachers of the Law, R. Abba, R. Isaac, and R. Ḥana, proves that Jews were living in that city, although Frankel, without reason, takes it to mean an Armenian city ("Mebo," pp. 6b, 66a), and Kohut a Spanish city ("Aruch Completum," vii. 220). It is evident from the introduction to the work "Adversum Judæos," ascribed to Tertullian, that Jews were living in Carthage; and they are found still further west (Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., iii. 26, note 64). Münter ("Primordia Eccl. Afric." p. 165, Copenhagen, 1829) mentions a certain R. Jisschak (the one in the Talmud?)..." And then c. As one can see from searching Google Books for Israelites and Carthage and Kingdom of Israel and Carthage there are lots of books out there that deal with this topic, far too numerous and far-ranging for me to read up on them now. But the point is they are on the scene and cannot be waved away as mere "hoaxes" or "OR". The fact that both some reliable mainstream scholars do contemplate a fuller role of Israelites/Jews in the life and history of Carthage, and that it is also part of a broader less-proven but nevertheless "accepted" or "latched onto" set of ideas and discussions by many others who have spent a great amount of time explicating that both the original Carthaginians in North Africa (and the Etruscans in Italy) were of Israelite origins, since they were VERY advanced civilizations that basically sprung up overnight and asserted themselves as regional world powers and empires with very advanced cultures on all levels and they fully arose following the collapse of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, basically there is a good chance they were refugees from the collapsed kingdom/s of Israel that were over-run by the Assyrians and Babylonians, it's not that far-fetched. Bottom line, I think the nominator is rushing to conclusions and others are just perhaps quickly jumping on the bandwagon without presumably really knowing much about this subject. You know, trying to be "accurate" about ancient civilizations, especially by ones that were wiped off the face of the Earth by the Romans who then got to write the "official histories" of what happened makes it tough to understand and accept what really happened and who was really there. Thanks for your patience. IZAK (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you repeat sources about the Roman and Talmudic periods. Nobody is disputing them. The rest of what you write is speculation and not even good speculation. Your argument in places is bizarre, especially the part about very advanced civilisations. The Egyptian, Assyrian and Phoenician worlds were very advanced long before anyone heard of Israelites. There was nothing about the Kingdom of Israel more advanced than them. Zero^talk 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Of course the Israelites were not the first important civilization on the planet, I agree with you on that point, even the Bible says so, there were many others before them. And of course the Egyptian, Assyrian and Phoenician as well as the Chinese were well-advanced, I agree with you on that point too, and perhaps even greater than the early Judaic civilizations of the Children of Israel and the two kingdoms they eventually set up as the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah that then survived as Judea until it was put out of commission by the Romans who exiled the Jews from their land 2,000 years ago. However you are wrong when you claim that "There was nothing about the Kingdom of Israel more advanced than them" because while other civilizations were advanced in government and warfare they were also all pagan, or made human rulers into "deities" and were 100% idol worshiping societies, while the early Israelites and the kingdom set up under King David and his son King Solomon were based on the Torah and its 613 mitzvot with input from the Hebrew Prophets that was based on Monotheism something that the Israelites and the Jews gave the world, in that sense they were the most advanced. However, according to the Hebrew Bible because some of the ancient Israelites eventually also adopted the pagan ways of the surrounding cultures it led to their decline, fall and exile (much like assimilation today has the same effects on Jews). That is the point at which the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel sent into exile and became the so-called Ten Lost Tribes. It is exactly preceding, during, and after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel that civilizations like those at ancient Carthage and Etruria come to prominence, and while they were very advanced they had continued with the problematic cultural traits that brought about the collapse of the Northern Kingdom of Israel such as pagan worship and even child and human sacrifices that was the plague of those times. By the way, the Romans took both the Etruscans and the Carthaginians VERY seriously and fought bitterly against them to destroy their power in order to set up their own rule. None of this is far-fetched and can be researched and read up on by those interested. IZAK (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. It is not a hoax. But it might have appeared to be so because it seems that there is no firm evidence that there were any Jews in Carthage during the period before its destruction by the Romans. The article should make this initially clear, rather than resort to speculation based on a very free interpretation of allusions. I'm judging this on the same sources as listed above, which are the only ones I as a total non-expert know. I have not checked for the results of modern archeology. I do however point out the the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia widely used here predates modern archeology, and so do the multi-volume treatises on Jewish history with which I and IZAK and many of us are familiar. Whether there is any evidence for the Punic period ending in 146 BCE is a question of interest, and I would need to check for this. The Jews had expanded fairly widely around the Mediterranean by then, though not as widely or in as large numbers as they were to do in the subsequent centuries. The Jews were of course very much connected with the Phoenicians previous to their migration eastward, and I do know that they has been a good deal of 20th and 21st century archeological research on this. This is however not the topic of this article.

I simply do not know what the situation was in Roman Carthage after its refounding rather soon afterwards. There were presumably Jews there, for they are documented throughout the Mediterranean in the first century BCE and subsequently. But I don't know the literature on this. Neither, as far as I can tell, do any of the people commenting above. I notice the Russian language online encyclopedia викисфера.рф/wiki and its article on the Jews in Carthage. [12] and its Google-Tranlation [13] This is not the Russian Wikipedia--I am unfamiliar with it, but it seems to have been primarily written by a banned ruWP editor [14] I have the distinct impression that the article here now under discussion may be based on the article there.\

see also the article in Encyclopedie Berbere, a standard printed work from L Peters, a European scholarly publisher of very high repute, of which a considerable amount is now online here {I see it's article on the topic, Judaïsme (dans l'Antiquité). This French article seems to be the most accessible source, and the WP article on the subject should be based on it. It has furthermore an excellent bibliography through 1991. I note it basically says there is essentially nothing known before the Roman period, except for two possible artifacts. DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and rewrite per DGG. The present text can be replaced wholesale, for a start, with the 1911 Jewish Encyclopedia article which is public domain and expanded from there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrible idea to start with a 103-year old source, and an even worse idea to copy-paste from it as you appear to suggest. An article should reflect modern knowledge, not older ideas that have largely been displaced. Zero^talk 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that it would be wrong to use the old JE as the basic source. Our knowledge about most topics in the ancient world has had revolutionary developments in the last 100 years. Most of the present archeological sites were not known then; many of the key texts were not known then. Ugarit had not been excavated, the Dead Sea Scrolls were unknown, the major structures in the City of David had not been found; for a summary see our article on Biblical archaeology. Interpretations of even the then-known material have changed also: the field is no longer dominated by the question of trying to verify (or disprove) the material in the Bible. I would use the old JE only for a illustration of previous views--for the basic facts, modern books must be used. (And in fact we should replace or de-emphasise all current material derived from there-- and the old EB. (It's not just the ancient near east--key Roman and Greek sites were also unknown, and scholars no longer view medieval and later history in terms of national and racial pride.) DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not read well at all. Maybe its useful content could be incorporated as a new section of Carthage. --Redaktor (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: @Redaktor: The old article was removed entirely, and instead new material with WP:V & WP:RS & WP:N have been put in place awaiting wikification and someone who has the time to devote to formatting it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: As of 17 September 2014: See: User talk:Tachfin#Request(@Tachfin:): Please take a look at the Jews in Carthage article now, as I have totally revamped it. All the old stuff was removed and replaced by WP:V & WP:RS from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and from the Jewish Virtual Library based on the Encyclopedia Judaica, as well as from sources found by using Google Books. I have spent some time wikifying and upgrading it and there is still more that can be done, but now it at least stands as a good article allaying your initial concerns and objections. Please reconsider and withdraw the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in Carthage. Thanks so much for your consideration. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is still as misleading as before. It starts with this sentence "Jews in Carthage refers to the history and presence of people of Jewish ancestry in ancient Carthage.". I again reiterate, there is no evidence at all of a Jewish presence in ancient Carthatge (i.e. Punic Carthage). The content that was recently added is bulleted list of (rather off-topic) points that do not really address the subject. --Tachfin (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep revised version but needs ongoing specialist editorial input. Encyclopedias are doubtful sources but in this case they provide WP:V while higher quality content is developed from the recent literature. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the Jews in Tunisia. Existing references to "Tunis" in the first paragraph of History_of_the_Jews_in_Tunisia#History probably ought to read "Carthage" anyway, as Tunis proper was not established until 698.

There is really very little material for a separate article History of the Jews in Carthage. Looking at the 1906 JE [15] it is really only the section "Jews in Carthage" that is revelant; and even most of this is about the surrounding area, rather than strictly Cathage itself. The 2007 Encyclopedia Judaica has a little more [16], but even the facts in this material would fit comfortably at the top of the Tunisia article (which would benefit from an increased Roman-period section). So, sorry User:IZAK, but on this occasion I think merge and redirect would be the best way forward. Jheald (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources that have been added to the article demonstrate that the topic is both notable and encyclopedic. It looks like many of the delete votes were based on versions of the article before it was substantially expanded. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: Well not really. The current content of the article is equally misleading insofar as it ignores the core point of debate here which is: There is no evidence at all of a Jewish presence in ancient Carthage. The rest of the material is a bit beside the point as it is a collection of points that, are only passably connected to the subject matter. The Jewish presence in Roman Africa (i.e. chiefly Modern Tunisia) is of course attested but that should go in an article about the history of Jews in Roman Africa and there is no reason to focus on the rebuilt Roman Carthage (1st-century-CE onwards), since it was just one amongst many Roman settlement in Roman Africa and there was nothing of particular significance for the supposed Jewish community that lived there. Especially that we don't even have a "Jews in Roman Africa" article. --Tachfin (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure comment: The result was no consensus. Of note is that the the article's content has significantly changed compared to its state at the time of the nomination. It's unclear whether or not some of the delete !voters herein (specifically User:Chris troutman and User:Tiptoethrutheminefield) considered the revised article, although it appears that the nominator and User:Zero0000 have done so and remain pro-deletion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(The above was placed here by User:Tachfin, who reverted my closure of the discussion.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 20 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. Deleted CSD:G5 Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keion Henderson[edit]

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

Probable autobiography on an utterly non-notable person. —Swpb^talk 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know if utterly or not but the subject seems not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability here, not even on a local scale. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 12 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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 September 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. The subject has attracted sufficient coverage to write a substantial article about it, so on the face of it meets WP:GNG. Debate is therefore about the limits of this, which comes down to whether WP:NOT applies. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS neither the existence nor the non-existence of similar articles is a factor. There is no consensus on the limits of notability, nor for a broader reading of WP:NOT. There is therefore no consensus to delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Richmond helicopter crash[edit]

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

WP:GNG military crashes are generally not notable as they are an operational hazard in a high risk environment. There were no lasting effects to procedures or the aircraft and there were no notable people onboard Petebutt (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the spokesperson said - "as far as we are aware, there is no issue of safety with the Lynx or indication about defects which could be proven in other aircraft". No impact on the industry or even that line of aircraft in the context of that service. Tragic, but it fails WP:EVENT. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as the nominator would have seen had they done due diligence and Googled it. And even if that weren't so, the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot (an aspect which generated significant media attention, again, due diligence...) is clearly significant. It's nominations like these that give the deletion process a bad name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is important, but the WP:BURDEN is on the article creator. The coverage in this instance is almost entirely from the immediate aftermath of the crash. It's news coverage but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. For an event to be considered notable enough for inclusion there needs to have been a longer-term impact than "helicopter crashed, people died" news coverage. The naming of a locomotive (12 years later) isn't the sort of lasting impact that substantiates a pass per WP:EFFECT as far as I'm concerned. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loathe though I am to get into a lengthy tit-for-tat which is only likely to lead to ill felling and contribute little to the debate, I will respond this once. BEFORE is indeed important and is far too often neglected, as it clearly was in this case; it seems to me that the only way to discourage these drive-by nominations is to summarily close them if BEFORE wasn't followed. Your "NOTNEWS" argument is absurd; that policy was not written to exclude articles about events that have been in the news or that are based mainly on news coverage. Now, if the only coverage was from the immediate aftermath, you might have a point, but there is detailed coverage from a year later, it's significant enough to be discussed in a feature about the organisation that salvaged the aircraft, and the locomotive naming attracted lots of coverage, much of which (even the railway-specific publications!) discussed the accident itself in considerable detail. And there are plenty more potential sources that aren't in the article—I just took what I needed to get the facts in and demonstrate notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In depth coverage from The BBC, The Scotsman, and the London Evening Standard? Clearly passes wp:N Neonchameleon (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources show notability - not just a standard crash incident. Bazonka (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes as notable based on coverage and the posthumous dedication to Lewis. There is a need to have articles about female fatalities in the services and notable female servicemen in general. Smirkybec (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HJ Mitchell et al. GNG is clearly met. Also, one of the victims (whose name redirects to the article in question) has had a locomotive named in her honour; further evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally military crashes are not considered unique enough to be featured on this site. However, as Harry writes above, there is clear evidence of lasting notability, which not only comes from the features a year later, but also from the naming of a locomotive. Besides that, there are also multiple sources on the internet discussing this crash. Granted, that is normal in a military crash when everyone and their brother reports on it, but it does help this article in that there are still sources occurring after the fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is easily met, plus the aspect of it being the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot means that this topic is clearly notable. (As an aside, I find the topics related to trailblazing women interesting reading like many people do, and would expect to see the details about the first military death of a female pilot in Wikipedia.) Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HJ Mitchell's well-stated explanation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable event that has a fair amount of coverage. User:Stalwart111, by simply repeating "Not news" I don't think you're doing your argument any favours. But, to respond to that particular critique I will address the four criteria listed at that policy:

Journalism. This point states that "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" - clearly this is not a point of contention here as the story is a decade old.
News Reports. This point states that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is not a routine event or part of an ongoing series. It is a one-off event that received ongoing interest. I presume you're not going to list other articles in Category:Accidents and incidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft for deletion on the basis of "not news"?
Who's Who. This point states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." This article focuses on the crash, its impact and subsequent events tied to that incident. The sections focusing on the (otherwise non-notable) person is to point out her uniqueness in the context of the event, not to attempt to claim that she is notable by Wikipedia's standards.
A Diary. This point states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." As mentioned in point 3 - we are clear that it is the event that is the important thing, not the individual who happened to be involved, so this is not a concern here.

Witty lama 15:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous. You've left out the only part we all know I was referring to - "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I remain of the view that a recap 12 months later and a train-naming 12 years later do not substantiate an "enduring notability". We all know why we're here - if this had happened anywhere else (except maybe the United States) we wouldn't dream of having an article about it. Keep the Anglo-centric dream alive! St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that allegation, and I resent your tone, Stalwart111. I respect your opinion, and I respect you for stating it, but please keep your comments confined to the suitability or otherwise of the article rather than attacking the motives of other editors commenting here. Comments like "it's notable because one of the victims was a woman? That's a new one", "Rule Britania! (we all know why we're here)", and " Keep the Anglo-centric dream alive!" are not helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an allegation directed at you. I happen to think you created an article about a non-notable subject - that's a matter for debate and we should have one. But this AFD has had more attention in its first 24 hours than most get in a week and the location of those who have rushed to defend it (some on blatantly non-policy grounds like "keep; a woman was involved") speaks for itself. When some simply cannot find a policy-based reason for keeping something and resort to disingenuous paraphrasing of policy and entirely-non-policy arguments, I think we're entitled to question motives. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mainstream news sources recapping the event in 2014 (12 years after original event) is a convincing sign of persistent coverage. Der yck C. 21:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll leave these here for you to consider - as far as I can see, not a single one of them has an article here. That's not an attempt at an "other stuff" argument; these are directly relevant and specifically similar incidents that have happened elsewhere that we don't cover and won't cover because those who died didn't know the words to "Rule, Britannia!":

Two Australian Commandos killed in helicopter crash
Military helicopter crash in Cambodia kills 5
S.Korea helicopter crash kills five
16 dead in Vietnam helicopter crash

In fact, as one of those articles points out, General Hok Lundy died in a military helicopter crash in 2008 and we haven't bothered to cover that either. The systematic geo-centric bias is alive and kicking over here at English WP. Wanna keep this? Go for it - I've said my bit. Just frustrating. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually making a good case for having articles of those topics and ensuring WP avoids systemic bias. Agree with you.--Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition of military air crashes and notability is a bit weird, so I think this would be worth bringing up in other areas as well. To be fair, I have had a helicopter and multiple air crash articles deleted, which I think is a bad approach since there are multiple reasons major air crashes in both the private and military sector should be covered. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion of "other stuff doesn't have an article", but just by way of example, in a quick search I found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 British military helicopter crashes that don't have articles. You won't find me arguing that systemic bias is not a problem, but that doesn't mean that nothing that happens in well-covered parts of the world is notable. I would argue that at least one or two of your examples should probably have articles as well—I would certainly expect there would be enough for an article on a helicopter crash that killed 16 people, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Easily passes WP:GNG and has a lasting legacy.--Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is clearly notable and passes all guidelines that I as an administrator am aware of 5 albert square (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading it, and all of the above, an article on this accident is wholly unwarranted from a notability/lasting impact standpoint, for a number of reasons:

1. The first link to "detailed coverage from a year later" is in fact just routine news reporting of the inquest - as happens for all other accidents of this nature (such as the recent Norfolk US military helicopter crash, whose Wikipedia article was deleted precisely because the accident was not notable).

2. The second link to discussion about the accident in a subsequent feature, is in reality actually the MoD's house magazine talking about the activities of a branch of the MoD, in which the operation is name-checked in a run down of previous salvages, namely because of the depth. Clearly this can't be taken as evidence of notability of the accident (which is odd, as I would have said being the deepest MoD salvage operation up to that date was arguably the most notable thing about this accident, from an encyclopedic point of view, but if independent news coverage is the test of such things, it clearly fails).

3. Outside of those two links, the claimed existence of "considerable detail" in coverage well after the event, outside of the routine inquest report and the MoD feature, doesn't actually seem to exist. Or at least I can't find it (and I've spent some time searching now, in order to substantiate some of the stuff I've said below). If it gets a mention at all, it's simply of the sort of 'call-back' nature which is standard practice - such as when the Guardian reported on a Lynx crash in 2004 [17], it's given a single sentence - "In 2002 a Lynx crashed when one of its engines exploded as it returned to the frigate HMS Richmond after an exercise off the east coast of the US.". That's the sort of standard call-back I'm talking about - otherwise known as entirely routine, bog-standard news fare. The way I read the guidelines, in depth coverage of an event this long ago should really now be coverage in actual books or documentaries. The way the internet coverage of this is looking 12 years on, I doubt this has appeared in any significant detail in any book, except perhaps one solely dedicated to the Lynx, and of course any such book would be full of detail on many incidents not considered noteworthy enough for Wikipedia.

4. Trains get named in Britain for all sorts of things, it's what we do. We love trains, and therefore, it's not all that hard to get the press to cover a train naming in Britain, even when it's entirely trivial, such as this. Add to that, the dedication is by a heritage railway, so it holds much less significance than it otherwise would - the decision was made by just one person, the locomotive owner. Even on the national network, trains can be named after people who died in accidents which will never have Wikipedia articles - unless someone can find a Wikipedia article relating to the girl named Sophie or the train driver mentioned in this article? On its own, it's simply not a reliable indication of lasting significance. Indeed, in this particular case, it seems that the decision to dedicate the train after her had as much to do with the fact she was a train enthusiast and she was a native of Dorset (the location of the railway), than anything to do with the crash itself (or even the fact she was the first female RN pilot to die). The BBC article about the naming actually doesn't even mention the first female aspect, yet it goes into detail about the fact the Class 33 was chosen because she was a fan of it.

5. The death of the first female in any occupation is in fact not a notable event in encyclopedic terms (you won't for example, find any kind of 'first female fatalities in X list'), it's simply a statistical inevitability once that occupation starts admitting females. The people who are advocating its importance here, are actually probably just causing offence to the relatives of the male fatality, by somehow suggesting his death is less important. You don't mark the contributions of the female gender this way, you mark them by documenting actual achievements, such as the name and date of appointment of the first female pilot in the Royal Navy (details which are conspicuously absent from this article, which is hard to reconcile if the gender aspect is the thing that makes this accident notable)

6. Having had a look around, this article is a stand-out oddity among the rest of the coverage on such crashes. It looks to be an oddity amongst Category:Accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, all of which seem to have far better claims to lasting notability (I'm not even seeing any other Lynx crashes in there). It also stands out in the Westland Lynx article, being the only mention of a crash which has a linked article, although ironically not mentioning the reason why (in fact not even mentioning at all that it was even a fatal accident). Very odd, given the next few lines are dedicated to detailing a crash which killed 5 in Iraq, yet no article. Even more odd when the reader realises that an even more fatal crash which occurred in between those two isn't even mentioned at all. As of 2004, there were apparently 15 fatalities apparently attributed to the Lynx. Is it really sustainable to portray this accident as the only one that was notable enough for an article? Clearly the relative press coverage of each is not going to bear that out - the crash in the Falklands would have got significant coverage at the time, surely, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be too hard to find call-backs and coverage of subsequent memorials/dedications either.

7. You would surely expect that any article on an aviation accident would be able to give the cause of the accident, or otherwise definitively state the cause is officially not known (one of the two must be the case after this length of time). Yet I don't see either in here, which leads me to believe that covering the accident isn't the reason for this article at all - it's the death of (just one) of the two people aboard (or indeed the train dedication). Which rather begs the question, would the article Death of Lieutenant Jenny Lewis really survive the test of time, as a stand-alone Wikipedia article? I think not. And I certainly don't think there will ever be an article on the individual locomotive, either. Yet these appear to be the two planks on which this article was created. The more I look at it, the more this article looks to be more about memorialising just one (of two) fatalities in an otherwise unremarkable accident, rather than detailing the actual accident and its cause. I certainly think it's safe to say this is never going to appear in the TV media, which I had until now assumed had covered every single unsolved air accident in history, certainly the ones like this where there's a double engine failure after one of them exploded (rather crucial facts conspicuously absent from what is supposed to be an article about the accident).

It doesn't seem to me that this article is ever going to be any more than an aggregation of what the newspapers said at the time, plus a place to document the first female aspect and the train dedication. The former is not a sufficient foundation for an aircrash article, and the latter could just as easily be documented as part of other relevant articles, such as the ship and railway. And obviously, as far as any potential gender studies readers go, the article is next to useless, beyond simply confirming what you likely already knew when you came here. And it will likely remain so even after the achievement side of the topic is fully fleshed out (there isn't even a biography here yet for the first female pilot in *any* branch of UKAF, let alone the RN (it's Flight Lieutenant Julie Ann Gibson if the British Armed Forces article is to be believed). Patrol forty (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Patrol forty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for your extensive and thoroughly thought out contribution Patrol forty. As a side-point to this deletion debate, find it odd that this long comment - which shows a strong understanding of Wikipedia policies and processes - is your first and only edit on any wiki, and that you registered for an account only a few hours beforehand[18]. This does not diminish the points you are making or give them any less weight, it is just highly unusual. Witty lama 09:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A breath of fresh air from the it was in the news so must have an article brigade. Thanks Patrol Forty--Petebutt (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Patrol forty (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this long analysis based on interpretation of advanced Wikipedia guidelines knowledge on your one and only edit, can you please tell us who's account this is a sock puppet of?--Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closely at the British-centric comparisons, language and comparison to other arguments, it won't be too hard to figure this out.--Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what is so advanced about what I said. I'm pretty sure notability is a bog standard concept here, and it's not like it's hard to understand - neither is the requirement for accident articles like this to demonstrate a lasting impact beyond timely news coverage (all of this was directly referenced in here). For sure I'm not a Wikipedia novice, I make minor edits and browse various topics in this field (otherwise how would I have known about the Norfolk crash?), but until today I'd never registered. I thought it only prudent to do so if I intended to make a long comment (although admittedly when I started, it was going to be a tenth of that length, I guess I'm a bit of a windbag). I guess to regulars here I suppose it is highly unusual that people might research the relevant Wikipedia rules before making a comment about a deletion, but I had rather hoped that the detail of my comment showed that I'm not the sort of person who does that - if I want to comment about something, I make sure I know what I'm talking about first by doing some research.

If you felt threatened by my comment Oakshade, I apologise. After all, it must be embarrassing if you consider yourself to be an expert on these supposedly advanced Wikipedia concepts, for some punk ass novice like me to come along and point out that referencing "per all above" was probably not a wise idea if you hadn't actually bothered to look closely at what had been said and linked to, as supposed evidence of in depth coverage long after the event. Or do you disagree with the substance of my argument? Is news reporting of an inquest, and an in house feature on the MoD about the MoD, actually evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (GNG) well after the event? In your expert eyes? Or maybe you know something about heritage railways that I don't? At the end of the day, I don't participate in Wikipedia in depth, because it seems to be a bit of a waste of time (I prefer to be paid for performing this sort of detailed analysis). I chose to comment here simply because I was just shocked that some very basic points of fact had apparently been completely missed by everybody arguing to keep it.

From where I'm standing, the basic facts are pretty clear to anyone, experts or no expert - 1. despite the claims to the contrary, it doesn't appear to have had any kind of detailed coverage after the event (even the MoD coverage isn't detailed), 2. being the first female to die in any particular occupation is certainly not some kind of notable achievement (not in the sense that it makes the cause of the death, i.e. the accident, inherently worthy of detailed coverage in Wikipedia, while other more significant crashes of the same helicopter 'in service' apparently do not), 3. a heritage railway posthumously naming a locomotive after someone who dies in an accident, is not remotely indicative of inherent notability for the accident - especially not when sources like the BBC don't even bother to mention what some people here seem to think makes this accident more notable than any of the several other Lynx crashes (with far higher fatality rates), and especially not when they give the precise reasons why that particular railway would choose to honour that particular person, reasons that had entirely nothing to do with either the accident or her gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrol forty (talk • contribs)

Whether Patrol forty is a sockpuppet or not, they've clearly put considerable effort into drafting that rationale so I feel it's worth the effort to address it. I'm not going to write a point-by-point rebuttal, but I will say this:

This crash appears to have attracted more coverage than most of its type (I gave examples above of several other crashes, of which none except possibly one had the same level of coverage; indeed, I searched for "Royal Navy helicopter crash" and this particular crash seemed to dominate the results, even though there have been several more recent crashes. There may be several reasons for that, but the reason somebody decides to cover an incident is irrelevant—the standard is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; regardless of the reasons for the coverage, the coverage exists.
My motives for creating the article are irrelevant.
Comparisons with other crashes are relevant to a point, but the lack of existence of an article on another crash is not a reason to delete this one. Indeed, I would argue that several (though not all) of the examples mentioned in this discussion, ought to have articles and that Patrol forty's example, 2014 Norfolk helicopter crash, was created prematurely and its deletion was far too hasty (the tone of that article was very much like a newspaper article in all fairness, but the topic itself is probably notable).
Specific notability guidelines are all well and good, but they exist to provide examples of subjects likely to meet the GNG, not to usurp the GNG; failing the criteria in an SNG does not mean that a subject does not meet the GNG.
The article is not finished. I'm currently trying to acquire more sources with which I hope to expand the article and include some of the missing details. But incompleteness is not a reason to delete something, it's a reason to keep working on it (though the red tag at the top of the article is wonderful for deterring editors!).
Finally, although somebody will doubtless point me to WP:NOHARM, I would ask what Wikipedia would gain from deleting this article. It's not a two-line stub that tells the reader nothing they couldn't have guessed from the title. It's nearly 500 words long and every single fact can be traced back to one of the reliable, independent sources cited in it. Its content complies fully with Wikipedia's core policies. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, it is a useful, informative encyclopaedia article and deleting it would leave a noticeable gap in Wikipedia's coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference in coverage that I can see, not if comparing fatal Lynx crashes. The Guardian story about the 2004 crash I linked to is as in depth and detailed as anything currently in this article. Even the MoD feature you claimed proved this crash was significant, devoted about the same number of words to that crash (both being pretty brief 'call-back' style mentions). And I don't see that changing any time soon, no matter how hard you look. The news coverage of all of these fatal Lynx crashes is pretty obviously good enough to write similar articles for all of them - they will all do what this one does. They would all be as useful and informative as this one is.

Except of course, this one still doesn't even say what the cause was (or definitively say it's not known). Surely if you'd been looking, you'd have at least found that by now, if the coverage of this crash is at the level you claim. I think your thought process is relevant if, as it seems to me, you didn't take into account how Wikipedia deals with similar crashes at all. I think it's also relevant if you can only answer my very detailed critique of why this specific article clearly isn't worthy, in the most general of terms (and contradictory ones at that - it can exist both because others could, and in spite of that). I would have thought any reply from you would have actually provided some evidence to back up the claims made about significant and detailed coverage well after the event, instead of effectively just repeating the claim.

As for what harm this article does, well, I already mentioned the possible offence to the male crew member's relatives (or indeed any relative of any of the deaths in other Lynx crashes) by the inference that, as males, the circumstances of their deaths were not as important as this one. Similarly, there's the reputational damage in Wikipedia even having articles on air crashes which don't even include the most basic of details, like the cause. I suspect you will eventually find a source for the cause, but I'm thinking you're probably going to have to look pretty hard, and will probably only find it in the actual investigation report. Which is all just more proof that, whatever this article is here for, it isn't to summarise the contents of the "significant" and "detailed" coverage it has got in secondary sources over the 12 years since (I'm assuming the investigation isn't just sitting somewhere on a shelf, still officially 'open').

I've just had a stab at re-arranging the article and adding a little bit, and I was struck by how much of it was just lifted directly from the news reports - very little has been left out. There's clearly been no attempt here to summarise anything from a historical perspective, which is after all the purpose of an encyclopedia. It's just an aggregation of the news reports of the time. So it's hard to deny that this fails the basic Wikipedia rule, that Wikipedia isn't a news site. Even though it was written a long time after, whole chunks of it look exactly as they would have if it had been written in real time, just like the Norfolk article did.

Perhaps worst of all, even if we are to accept the flawed premise that this article is justified because the crash was the cause of the first female RN pilot/observer death in service (which is a pretty narrow criteria anyway - is being a female aircraft gunner/loader not just as dangerous?), it should be noted that this claim is prefaced by "believed to be" - that's what the Navy said at the time, and its been dutifully repeated here. But if this is an important and notable thing, surely in all that ongoing coverage, this detail would have been confirmed by now? Another good reason to disbelieve the claims this was a notable accident of lasting impact/legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrol forty (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic has considerable coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore it is clearly notable per WP:GNG. So the only question is whether WP:NOT applies. Since the preface to that policy at WP:NOTEVERYTHING states The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive, it is obvious we can never eliminate all of the exclusions possible under this policy. In other words, WP:NOT can only be used to tell us what articles should not exist, because we cannot exhaust an indefinitely sized list to show that the policy does not apply. What we have to do to counter an argument such as WP:NOTNEWS is to examine whether the topic meets our understanding of 'encyclopedic' content. I believe that this event is encyclopedic, because it has persistent coverage and has sources relating extra aspects of the incident - principally the "first woman", "deepest salvage operation" and "locomotive dedication". Although any of those three factors are not likely to be notable per se, that's not what we're considering: we're examining whether this is more than a single event that received topical news coverage and then disappeared from public notice. From the sources, it is abundantly clear that this is not the case, and it follows that the article as written contains sufficient interest above a mundane accident report for us to consider the topic encyclopedic. I am in no doubt that it should be kept. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't even say what the accident report concluded. Does that really meet your understanding of what would be an encyclopedic recounting of an air accident that happened 12 years ago? Similarly, is it encyclopoedic to be not so sure whether or not she was the first woman? The reason why both of these things are still not in the article, is precisely because there has been no persistent coverage that meets the Wikipedia requirement of being significant and independent. These details clearly cannot be found in a quick Google search, so someone is presumably going to have to do some pretty serious research if they want these issues resolved.

With that in mind, the reality is, whatever people keep trying to claim here without any evidence whatsoever, this accident (which is after all the subject of the article), *has* effectively disappeared from public notice. If we're discounting the (entirely routine and expected) news coverage of the inquest, and the (non-independent) brief mention in the MoD magazine (which wasn't even about the accident), what else is there? The BBC story on the train naming. That's it, as far as I can see. And if that shows anything at all as far as persistence goes, it's that Lt. Lewis herself is the topic which should be the subject of an article here - it's obviously her as a person (as in her name, residence and interest in trains) that hasn't been forgotten, not the accident that caused her death (and more on that below). That BBC article doesn't even mention the 'first women' issue.

It's only Wikipedia that's trying to manufacture a lasting interest in the accident by combining these three quite disparate factoids of first female, depth and train naming, into some kind of whole that's bigger than it's parts. It's the sources that make that abundantly clear - what's the first Google result for "first female royal navy pilot to die in service" (no quotes)? This article. What's the second result? A topical news story on the crash and (ongoing) investigation. That's it. All the rest are completely irrelevant. What's the first Google result for "deepest royal navy salvage operation 2002"? (no quotes). This article. The next 6 are totally irrelevant. Then comes the MoD feature, which is neither independent or significant.

Googling "Train dedicated Lynx" was equally revealing, but for different reasons - I found a local news report [19] (which was simply just a rehash of the railway's own press release [20]). Note that in both of these pieces, the accident is described in a single sentence - there's more detail in there about the locomotive itself! And yes, also note that the gender aspect is completely ignored (except to note she was one of the first female RN helicopter crew, which backs up what I said about what the right way is to properly mark the role of women in the military, by marking their achievements, not the statistical inevitably of the first time one of them dies).

This piece also shed even more light on the true nature of this dedication - "As a tribute to his daughter, Jenny's father Chris Lewis – who lives in Broadstone in Dorset – became a major shareholder in the 71A Locomotive Group to help pay for the major overhaul of No. D6515". The train dedication/flypast was nothing more than the entirely understandable act of a loving father choosing to honour the short life of his daughter in a way that was closely associated with her leisure time interests, and the entirely understandable act of former colleagues marking the untimely death of one of their own. What any of that has to do with an encyclopedia aside from a footnote in the railway/train articles, is frankly beyond me.

There is in fact absolutely nothing in the sources to support the idea that this particular crash, or the fact it marked the death of the first female RN pilot/observer in service, has had any kind of lasting legacy on the public consciousness. Certainly not through a decision of an independent body to do something to mark/remember those things. And I think, absent any actual new facts, it's obvious there was nothing about the accident that was notable as far as aviation safety/military operations goes. It's odd (to me at least) that the depth issue hasn't been 'remembered' by third parties, but absent any actual proof to the contrary, nobody here can say that it hasn't been forgotten.

I apologise for yet again writing an essay when I simply intended to write a paragraph, but the realities are clear, and only get clearer with every new search - this was a crash which has been forgotten by independent sources outside of routine news reporting, despite having had two interesting details to it beyond the ordinary for such things (depth, gender 'milestone'). This was a death that has been remembered, but not by anyone independent, and arguably not for any reason related to the crash (except for the obvious, that it was the cause of the death). If Wikipedia chooses to remember those things when the rest of the world does not do that, that's obviously a mistake, because you're simply acting as a news archive service, in violation of your own rules.

I frankly do not see what anyone thinks Wikipedia is achieving as an encyclopedia, by keeping this article. If I want to know what the news reports said about the crash at the time, I don't need Wikipedia for that. If I want to know what the MoD itself thinks were its more memorable salvage operations, I don't need Wikipedia to tell me. And if I really wanted to know who the first female RN helicopter pilot/observer to die in service (including exercises) was (typing it out as a query only shows just how unrealistic it is to think anyone except those directly involved would actually be searching for that sort of information), then clearly I am no better of coming to Wikipedia than if I consulted the original news reports - they say exactly the same thing, with neither being certain at all.

And if I want to know why locomotive D6515 is named Jenny Lewis (arguably a more realistic prospect than either the gender or depth aspects), I would actually rather not be misled by Wikipedia into believing that this was a commemorative act made independently as some kind of public act of remembrance of a notable event in the history of naval aviation / female service personnel. Rather than deceiving me, or wasting my time by having me read an incomplete article which simply recounts the original news reporting of the accident/inquest, I would actually prefer to go to a source like the railway itself or the topical news of the ceremony, which gives the real reason why the locomotive was named, and is clear that it was not an independent act of commemoration, and actually had next to nothing to do with the crash, and by extension its Wikipedia claimed place in the history of naval aviation / female service personnel.

It's quite damning actually that, with a single sentence, a press release by a heritage railway 12 years later, almost matches this Wikipedia article as far as usefulness to a reader in summarising what actually happened in the accident, from a historical perspective. The only details in the article that are not in that sentence, are pulled from the minutia relayed by the topical news reporting of the time. All dutifully repeated here, without any historical context at all. At least they both agree on one thing - either the cause of the engine failure isn't known, or it was ultimately unimportant. But only the heritage railway seems to be speaking authoritatively on that - a reader of this article probably wouldn't notice if this article simply repeated what's in 6 of the 8 references, namely that the "investigation is ongoing". They would possibly assume, as I initially did, that the whole thing had been written at the time of the crash, and then nobody had updated it, except to add the detail about the train. Patrol forty (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although actually, I've just noticed the railway source does actually make a definitive statement on the gender issue - she was the "first United Kingdom naval servicewoman to lose her life while on operational duty." I missed it because they tacked it onto the end of a paragraph talking about the precise timing of the flypast, which I just skimmed. As this appears to have been directly copied by the Western Gazette from the railway press release, I leave it to others to decide if this can be taken as proof enough for Wikipedia, or whether more confirmation would be needed - seeing as it would also appear to be a widening of the significance ('naval servicewomen' obviously being a larger group than just helo pilot/observers). Patrol forty (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a few combinations, and I can only find this being reported by a few local newspapers, all at the same time off the back of the railway press release. So purely from a personal point of view, I'd be very wary of taking it as a proven fact. And FWIW, "Jenny Lewis" doesn't appear anywhere on www.royalnavy.mod.uk, which seems strange to me, if she really was the first RN member to die while on operations. Patrol forty (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sad that it is but flying military helicopters is a risky business and accidents happen, this just happens to be one of them, nothing in the article stands out as being particulary notable and the accident is covered in the squadron article. I can see an interest in first female something as being notable but sad as it is being the first female fleet air arm observer is just one of hundreds of military jobs that females do, female x job x country x air force/navy/army/marines would start to be tedious. If I could see evidence that she was the first female helicopter observer or aircrew member in the world to die in an aircraft accident then that may be different but none of the sources make that claim. That leaves a mention in the squadron or fleet air arm article (although they dont mention the first male losses in different roles) but not a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this day and age of instant media, being broadly covered in the news media is not sufficient to confer notability, and even later news hits need to be beyond WP:ROUTINE follow-up coverage to be persistent. As Patrol fortu and MilbornOne have quite well explained, this is, in fact, a non-notable military crash; regrettable and tragic, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not in any way ban topics because they were broadly covered in the news media. The "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires does not exclude "news media." It is not "routine" for there to be detailed significant coverage a year after an event. WP:ROUTINE defines such coverage such as "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" which of course the coverage of this topic is nothing of a sort. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, your first two sentences don't appear to relate to anything The Bushranger actually said. Could you perhaps rephrase your reply to answer his actual concerns? And indeed, make some attempt to respond to mine? Such as clarifying which sources you're referring to, when you claim there has been significant coverage after the event? Because there's only three of them in the article, and they all have problems, if they're to be considered either detailed, independent, or non-routine.

The news report of the coroners inquest for example, that seems to me to fit the Wikipedia definition of routine - it's the sort of follow up reporting that every fatal aircrash gets in the UK, certainly military ones - Here is a 2009 news report of the inquest into the 2004 crash mentioned earlier (which has no Wikipedia article). Wikipedia obviously doesn't count this sort of ongoing coverage as non-routine in this topic area, otherwise there'd be an article here on every single fatal aircrash, like the recent Norfolk one, and certainly every other fatal Lynx crash, and there appears to have been quite a few. The MoD feature isn't independent, and it wasn't detailed, just a simple recap. That only leaves the reporting of the train naming ceremony, which also only recounted the crash in a single sentence - reflecting the reality that the actual crash, the subject of this article, was of marginal/tangential significance to the decision to name the train (except of course, in being the actual cause of her death).

I think it's even a stretch to call the news coverage of this accident at the time as broad - I think that any fatal military air crash would generate just as much journalistic effort and column inches as this one apparently did, yet only a fraction of those are considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Indeed, you can see that for yourselves by looking at the back-links in that 2009 report on the inquest of the 2004 crash. And it bears repeating, I don't think anyone can ever justifiably say this accident received broad or ongoing coverage in the news, when it has apparently not covered what the accident investigation concluded. Even though the conclusion for the 2004 crash was inconclusive, that fact actually made it into the news, yet this one hasn't. Patrol forty (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were directly responding to what the The Bushranger actually said - "being broadly covered in the news media is not sufficient to confer notability" and his mention of WP:ROUTINE. He didn't actually mention WP:GNG, but he did claim non-notability. GNG stands for "General Notability Guideline" and WP:GNG is the primary gauge of notability on WP. If you'd like to change WP:ROUTINE to be defined as beyond the scope of "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," you're free to make your case on that guideline's talk page. But now that you responded, I will also add that WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly doesn't apply as that is meant for topics that have not received significant independent coverage from reliable sources as this topic has, ie someone's beloved uncle, or as WP:NOTMEMORIAL states, "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances." --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were completely at odds with what he said - at no point did he even come close to saying Wikipedia "bans" topics that were broadly covered in the news media, or that the measure of notability in Wikipedia "excludes" news media. He also didn't say that it "wasn't routine for there to be detailed significant coverage a year after an event". He was specifically pointing out the lack of non-routine follow-up about this crash as the reason why it's not notable. So in that light, your response made no sense at all, except to imply he hadn't even read ROUTINE. I rather think he, like me, thinks it would be entirely wrong to presume the intent of ROUTINE is to define non-routine as everything that's not "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." As for WP:MEMORIAL, I guess it depends on whether or not the lack of a title like Death of Lieutenant Jenny Lewis means that the deceased is not the intended subject of the article. The focus on her and the train, to the detriment of the other fatality or indeed properly covering the crash the way an encyclopedia would, rather suggests she is, albeit obliquely, and perhaps only because of her gender, rather than her person. Patrol forty (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time you seem to have and I'm not paid for this so I'm not going to be as extensive as you. I'd rather spend my time contributing, like creating articles (I created 2 in the last 24 hours) and improving existing ones. He typed "In this day and age of instant media, being broadly covered in the news media is not sufficient to confer notability, and even later news hits need to be beyond WP:ROUTINE follow-up coverage to be persistent." Besides a second sentence about WP:NOTMEMORIAL, he didn't say anything else. The primary basis to confer notably is in our General Notability Guideline in which significant coverage ("broadly covered") by reliable sources ("the media") confers notability ("not sufficient to confer notability") which of course is opposite of WP:GNG - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Now I want to see longest reply ever. I have a life, I will have no time nor inclination to respond. Enjoy your WP:LASTWORD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last word to you will simply be that you're not responding, you're just repeating. I'm not paid for this either, but at least I've taken the time to actually read the sources, read the rules, and give a critical analysis, in the apparently naive expectation that someone would engage with it and counter my points to show how I've got it completely wrong. If you like writing articles instead of doing that, then please write one on the 2004 Lynx crash, since it seems to meet your definition of notable (as do all of the others in all likelihood). Or alternatively, you could improve this one - because despite your claims that it has been covered extensively, in depth, and over time, it is still missing essential details, such as the conclusion of the investigation. Hopefully someone will recognise just how little time you have spent on your analysis of it, or the purpose of the rules (or the fact that EVENT is the specific rule in play here), and delete the article, unless or until someone can actually prove with evidence that it does comply. Patrol forty (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, I had to respond to this. I've been editing here for almost a decade and have not only spent years analyzing, working with and, in some cases, writing the rules, I've had actual practical application of them over a period spanning a decade. Many long articles are almost entirely written by me with the utmost integration to WP policies, styles and guidelines. While you've failed to recognize my contributions I know others have. You on the other had have only contributed to long winded flawed arguments that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of our rules such as WP:EVENT in both letter and spirit of that rule. Instead of insulting highly experienced users, why not actually contribute the the improving of our articles.--Oakshade (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact you haven't bothered to address any specific point I've made here regarding how the rules relate to this specific article and its sources, tells me that I probably do have a very good understanding. Obvious errors are easily pointed out, in any walk of life. Yet you seem to be having great difficulty constructing any kind of fact based response at all, preferring instead to just repeat what the rules say, as if after all this time I might still not have read them. As for insulting people, I'm not entirely sure how anything I've said here amounted to a failure to recognise your contributions. I'd like to reassure you I didn't take any offence from you apparently not noticing that I've been the only person to add any information to this article in the last week. I'd say that was an improvement, but since it added clarification which undermines the case for notability, I'm guessing you'd disagree. I don't doubt that you've spent many hours on Wikipedia, creating all sorts of articles. Does that prove you read the sources in this article? Does that prove you have a proper grasp of the spirit of EVENT? All I can go on is what you've said here, which is still unconvincing. I might think differently if you'd said just one thing so far relating to a specific point of fact I've raised, such as the MoD feature. It forms 1/3 of the supposed evidence of coverage after the event, but it's not independent, and is barely a line long. How many times does a supposed novice have to repeat such an obvious error in the EVENT/lasting coverage argument, before a self-proclaimed expert like yourself bothers to even answer it? People can draw their own conclusions for this failure, I've already given mine. Patrol forty (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding the the misuse of WP:Routine in this instance. If you read the policy it doesn't seem applicable to the type of coverage that comes from catastrophic events that get covered in the news and then later have press conferences to speak further about the event. As well, the crash sparked other events in later years such as the train named after Lewis. As I have previously stated, Wikipedia is a place that I would expect to be able find out background information about the crash that killed Lewis. The topic is encyclopedic in nature...not a tabloid event or a slow day in the media type of coverage. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE has to apply to this type of coverage, otherwise Wikipedia would have to consider every single fatal Lynx crash notable, because every single one gets the type of coverage you're referring to (which in this case, is simply reporting on the inquest). I've already given an example of this happening for the 2004 crash. As for your expectations and claim this is an encyclopedic, I've already written extensively on why it would be wrong to believe that. But to recap:

Readers who want to know more on the gender angle will surely be disappointed - this article has nothing in that beyond what the RN believed was the case at the time, that she was the first female Royal Navy pilot or observer to die in service. That's it. If they do their own research, they're not going to find anything more reliable or concrete than local news sources repeating the heritage railway's claim 12 years later that she was the "first United Kingdom naval servicewoman to lose her life while on operational duty", which is somewhat different, and hardly concrete enough for inclusion here as an historical fact. It also has absolutely no background information on Lewis as far as her role as a female in the RN goes (because sources simply say she was one of the first female RN pilot/observers - they clearly don't consider it significant enough to even clarify where she came in the order, or name who was the first helicopter pilot/observer, and so this article doesn't either). All in all, it's amazing you found anything of value here, if your interest is Lewis/the gender aspect. I expect encyclopedias to restrict their coverage of such things to actual achievements (such as who was the first female RN helo pilot/observer), not mere statistical inevitabilities, such as the fact that females in dangerous occupations are going to die, sooner or later, just like there was a first male helicopter pilot to die.

Readers expecting to find the sort of information you'd ordinarily expect in an encyclopedic article on a historically notable aircrash are going to be disappointed, because there's nothing here except repetition of the news reporting at the time, and it's not even complete - missing out crucial details like the investigation conclusion. There's no historical overview whatsoever, despite there being quite a lot of coverage out there about crashes involving the Lynx. I expect those readers to be really annoyed that this has an entire article, yet other similar crashes get barely a sentence, if they're even mentioned in Wikipedia at all.

Readers expecting to find more detail on the depth angle are going to be disappointed too. While it does seem to me to be notable that this was apparently the deepest aircrash salvage recovery operation to date, the fact this is restricted to a single sentence, and is only sourced to a brief recap mention by the MoD in a feature that had nothing to do with the crash, with no other mentions apparent in any other source, either at the time or since, seems to speaks volumes as far as evidence of encyclopedic worth goes.

Readers believing your claim that this crash sparked "other events in later years" are going to find out the truth of that statement - there was only one event, the train naming, and once they read the sources, they will find that the only link between this crash and the train naming is the mere fact she died. They'll also discover that this was hardly an independent act either. As such, it's tangential at best - the naming was done as much to commemorate the fact she was from Dorset and liked trains and her father funded the restoration, than for the fact she died in this particular crash. Which gets just a single sentence by way of recap.

The reason for all these flaws and failures to live up to reasonable expectations of an encyclopedia's treatment of a notable aircrash (or indeed a notable salvage recovery/gender milestones/railway locomotive), is inescapable - it's the lack of any actual historical notability in the real world. That's reflected in the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources after the event. The proof is in the pudding. By ignoring the intent of EVENT, this article looks exactly like what it is, and what it will always be limited to - a replication of the news coverage at the time, with a bit about a train tacked onto the end, the importance/significance of which is debatable, certainly to the event being documented here anyway. Whoever is getting value from reading pages like this, has clearly not understood what an encyclopedia is for (summarisation and historical overview), or is just really really bad at using Google and can't find anything on the internet unless it's on Wikipedia. Patrol forty (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that the article is not complete is not a reason to delete it (WP:SURMOUNTABLE), nor is the fact that other crashes don't have articles (WP:OTHERCRAP). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in SURMOUNTABLE that Wikipedia has to keep articles which cannot be finished because the details required to finish them have not been covered by reliable sources? That's the case I've been making, after doing my own research and finding nothing. If you believe this is merely an issue of cleanup, rather than clear evidence of non-notability, then the only thing you can really do is provide some proof that the missing details can eventually be sourced, so that the article will eventually be of use to someone coming here with the expectation of an encyclopedic treatment of a historically notable event (rather than just a more convenient presentation of what the news reports said at the time, and a tangential section about a train). Remember that the claim you and others have made is that this crash was given significant coverage, in depth, in detail, by reliable sources, long after the event. It simply doesn't then add up if you cannot then find with the utmost of ease, sources for the sort of the basic information that this article is still missing. I found a source for the cause of the Norfolk crash in about 10 seconds. [21]. It also took about the same time to find the cause of the 2004 crash, linked to above (and also recaped by the same MoD feature as this crash).

And while OTHERCRAP says to use caution, it quite rightly doesn't dissuade anyone from referencing outcomes in similar circumstances, and I've purposely only referred to incidents which are remarkably similar, up to the point of proving they even have exactly the same sort of coverage which is being claimed as evidence of lasting notability here. Rather than simply dismissing this as being irrelevant because it's just 'other crap', I'd expect some kind of reason as to why, if the same rules are being applied to the same incidents which got the same coverage, there should be a different outcome. There doesn't seem to me to be any point in even pretending that the reason no other articles on fatal Lynx crashes have been created is simply because nobody has bothered to start one. That doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all, given the number of crashes and length of time that has passed, and the general popularity of articles on the western militaries on Wikipedia in general.

The simple fact is, the level of detailed coverage this crash got at the time, every fatal Lynx crash gets. And the things that supposedly make it unique and historically notable, have barely been mentioned by independent sources after the event, in stark contrast to the claims that these things have received significant/in depth/detailed coverage in a way that was not routine. This is not an OTHERCRAP point, this is a proper analysis of the actual sources with reference to the rules in play, in a way that logically explains why this article shouldn't have an outcome that's any different from those crashes. Patrol forty (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to [22], "At a depth of 4,000m, it was the deepest ever recovery of a crashed aircraft and allowing the accident invesitgators to identify a potentially serious defect and fix the problem immediately throughout the rest of the Lynx helicopter fleet." The cause is given in [23] - it was due to a dislodged fuel pipe that caused a fire, and a modification was made to avoid it happening in the future. With a bit more digging, particularly looking at the overall report, I'm sure there's plenty more available information that can be added into this article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you provided the first link - it's already in the article, and what it says (and what it is), has been discussed extensively here. As for the second link, I can only refer back to my previous statement - "I suspect you will eventually find a source for the cause, but I'm thinking you're probably going to have to look pretty hard, and will probably only find it in the actual investigation report. Which is all just more proof that, whatever this article is here for, it isn't to summarise the contents of the 'significant' and 'detailed' coverage it has got in secondary sources over the 12 years since (I'm assuming the investigation isn't just sitting somewhere on a shelf, still officially 'open')."

Regarding your claim that "information about the cause is easily obtainable." when you made this comment, I'd say that the second link is proof that it isn't. I'm not sure if you realised or not, but that isn't even the report into this crash, it's a report into the 2011 crash of XZ210 in Germany (which of course, has no article on Wikipedia) - this is clearer when you look at the home page [24] (the link is merely part 1.4.4). If the information was really easily available, you'd at the very least have been able to find the right report, no?

And it raises another issue. Your claim above that the cause was "a dislodged fuel pipe that caused a fire, and a modification was made to avoid it happening in the future" is clearly the result of your own analysis of that report. It should be clear what the risks are to Wikipedia, if it is being left to random Wikipedia editors to digest and summarise the contents of what look to be quite technical reports. So, even if this link (or the actual report of this crash) were to be used to finish the article as regards the official cause, there's the issue of whether or not the information would be trustworthy or reliable (since its the product of editors performing their own interpretations of it).

That feeds into the notability argument - if this crash was truly notable, then you wouldn't even have to be performing this kind of research. For notable crashes, professional aviation journalists/researchers would be the people digesting and summarising those reports, and Wikipedia would then be sourcing the contents of its article on the crash from whatever they come up with (news reports, or even books in the fullness of time, e.g. 'history of the Lynx'), as reliable secondary sources (GNG).

And ironically, your unearthing of the second link would appear to show exactly why Wikipedia requires sources to be the product of reliable researchers of a certain level of independence (certainly enough to remove the suspicion of bias/conflict of interest) - in the first link, we have the MoD claiming in 2010 that the investigators of this 2002 crash "identified a potentially serious defect and fixed the problem immediately throughout the rest of the Lynx helicopter fleet", and yet in the second link we have the MoD in 2013 appearing to suggest (to my non-expert eye) that the reason XZ210 crashed in 2011 was because it was not given that fix, and the reason it didn't get it was because the defect was not considered to be serious enough, being a mere issue of survivability rather than flight safety).

If the article is to be kept, I'd certainly like to know how it's proposed to deal with this apparent contradiction, if as I suspect, it's not been cleared up (or even noticed) by any other source likely to be found (even though it's claimed they're easy to find), certainly not one that would be considered secondary or independent. I hope everyone here would agree that SURMOUNTABLE does not cover the prospect of only being able to finish an article once individual Wikipedia editors have decided which of two non-independent government sources offer the true version of events. Just like I wouldn't expect them to decide which newspaper is correct about the scope of the gender milestone either (first pilot/observer, stated simply as an on the day belief by the RN, or simply the first female servicewoman, stated as fact much later, but by a heritage railway). Patrol forty (talk)

Having learned even more about the Lynx in the course of updating its article with details of a few more crashes which appear to have had both much more notable causes/effects than this one, as reflected in both the coverage at the time, as well as truly in depth, independent and significant coverage long after the event (example), I can say now with a high degree of confidence that the idea that finding any more in depth information about this particular crash, or indeed anything that comes close to this sort of coverage, is frankly quite preposterous. I am quite certain now that what is here, is probably all there is, and if anything more is to be added, it's not going to be easy to find, and it's probably going to come from Wikipedia editors resorting to poring over unreliable/non-independent sources, or indeed performing their own analysis/deduction from the original documentation.

In other words, it's going to cease being an encyclopedia article which adequately reflects the breadth/depth of lasting secondary coverage (which it arguably never has been yet, as the coverage isn't there beyond the briefest of recaps), and will instead just become another piece of the aviation blogroll, both adding to and repeating the various titbits of information about every aircrash there's ever been in the history of the world, which float about the internet long after the events, but which never make it to reliable, independent sources beyond the initial news coverage, largely because they are not considered historically notable.

At best, this article is doomed to be simply tangentially useful background reading on why Lt Lewis' father decided to fund the restoration of a train on a private railway in Dorset in his daughters memory, because she liked trains and was from Dorset. Of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with him having done that, it's just not exactly Brittanica, is it? They wouldn't devote an entire article to such an event, and neither I would have thought, would Wikipedia.

And it also appears the gender aspect is not nearly as significant as some have claimed (as reflected by the lack of coverage and ongoing ambiguity over which precise milestone this was). Based on what I've found tonight, MilborneOne seems to have correctly identified the issue above - it's simply not compatible with EVENT for Wikipedia to be writing an article for every crash which is in some way a 'first' in any particular branch/type/role combination in the various roles females now have in the military.

There comes a point when the press are simply hair-splitting for no good reason (or at least no reason that isn't simply news driven) - for example it's considered newsworthy that there was a 22 year gap between 1994 and 2006 when no female servicewomen died on operations in any branch (the 2006 death ironically being in a Lynx crash [25]), yet as this incident shows, during that same period, it's also newsworthy that single branches of the services (Navy) suffered their first ever death in service. It's hard to claim this forms a coherent encyclopedic topic you would "expect to see on Wikipedia", if these things aren't being cross-tracked by the very sources which you'd have to use to create the Wikipedia articles (a list?) for that. I will say again, it's still not even clear which gender milestone Lewis even represented by dying in this accident, and the source of the confusion can only be down to the lack of reliable independent ongoing coverage, and hence from an encyclopedic/historical standpoint, the lack of notability of it.

Indeed, Wikipedia can't seem to take a coherent approach to this at all - I've only just found out the woman who died in 2006, Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, actually has an article here, presumably for being notable as the first female death in Iraq. Yet you will find the crash which caused her death gets a single sentence mention in the biography. Is that representative of the treatment it gets in sources? Clearly not. Compare and contrast with this situation, the crash causing the death gets an entire article, yet the person gets nothing (not even a brief biography as a section within it). Is that representative of the sources? Of course not. In the news coverage at the time, she at least got the briefest of biographical treatments. This article has more detail on the crash, and less detail on her, than any of the news sources, and of all three of the sources which are the claimed evidence of lasting notability. Which is of course, in part built on the gender milestone. Patrol forty (talk) 00:01, 12 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the non-admin closure of this discussion and relisted it for further discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing coverage twelve years after the original event and plenty of quality sources which pass WP:GNG. There are also obvious alternatives to deletion which are preferred per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This analysis makes no sense. If the first sentence was true, the second would be entirely redundant - by definition, there's absolutely no need to tag/merge/redirect/incubate/transwiki/archive an article whose primary topic satisfies EVENT (which appears to be what the first sentences was trying to articulate). And as I've already said, just because this particular crash does seemingly fail EVENT, doesn't mean that details of it can't be included in other related articles - there are indeed (potentially) some historically notable facts here worthy of retaining. Although given the problems with the quality of their sourcing that have already been identified above (and seemingly ignored by this person's analysis), rather than supporting their retention, PRESERVE seems to me to call for their complete removal under VERIFY/ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Patrol forty (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bludgeoning is unconvincing. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I think people might notice it even more if I repeat the point you chose to ignore - it makes absolutely no sense at all to invoke any of the listed alternatives to deletion, if the first sentence of your vote was even remotely true (because if it were true, EVENT would be met, allowing the crash to have its own article on Wikipedia). Patrol forty (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy provides layers of resilience which helps prevent catastrophic failure. For this reason, helicopters which fly over water or cities are required to have two engines. The helicopter in this case was of this kind and it's interesting that it suffered a double engine failure. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, I don't see what this has to do with you explaining how you can invoke GNG and ATD at the same time. Second, if this is now the reason you want to keep it, it appears to be an obvious case of WP:INTERESTING. What's more interesting is what happens when considering these two reasons together - if it was notable for the failure of the redundancy to ensure resilience, the sources would have covered it that way. But they don't. Not even close. They give the double-failure aspect as much attention as any of the other basic facts, without even bothering to mention redundancy/resilience. The article could say more on it if some random Wikipedia editor decides to play aviation journalist and analyse the report themselves, but that would just reinforce the fact it doesn't meet EVENT (because anyone can do that for any crash regardless of notability, including all the less well covered double-failure Lynx losses like XZ210 mentioned above). Patrol forty (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point was an analogy. Multiple arguments have been presented for deletion and so multiple refutations seem appropriate. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find Patrol forty's arguments well set out, and even eloquent. I'm not sure what my opinion is at the moment. I am not certain that the naming of a locomotive this past summer is a sign of enduring notability. I note that it's a preserved loco, so the hurdle to pass to name may be less than in say an operational mainline train. The attendance of the Fleet Air Arm is not that surprising given the link, but also Yeovilton is only "down the road" (I saw a Lynx fly over Corfe Castle when I was down there in August). It comes across as a local story rather than a national one. I am even less sure of the MoD one from 2010, in that the Richmond helicopter is but a passing mention. I'm tending towards "Delete" but I shall ponder more.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least someone is reading them I guess..... Patrol forty (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This seems like a very notable incident to me, as would any similar helicopter crash. In response to some of the comments above:
- Notability: the incident has been covered by a number of reliable sources (including consecutive articles by the BBC, and also other mainstream coverage), which gives it sufficient notability from my perspective (there's more than enough information available in reliable sources to write this article). That the incident did lead to a recommended modification of the fleet, even if it wasn't adopted, seems very notable to me. Also, the fact that Harry has started the article over a decade since the incident in itself indicates that this has long-term notability (how would he have heard about the incident so long after it happened if it wasn't an important event?). In this case, I think that the event notability guidelines need to be improved rather than being used as a reason for deletion.
- Comparison with other events: I think this demonstrates a lack of coverage of other such events here rather than a notability issue for this event. Many of the incidents that have been pointed to above really should have a Wikipedia article, and I'd like to see them created in the near future.
- Availability of information for the article: Personally, I think there's more than enough information available to write an article on this subject. I would go beyond that to say that I think this could be a Good Article with a bit more work (I hope that Harry will continue to work on this article despite this debate; I'm also willing to spend some time working on the article if it is kept).
- Summarising referenced material: It's been commented above that facts from the incident reports shouldn't be included in the article unless reported elsewhere. I think that's wrong. If it's factual information, then I think it's absolutely fine for such facts to be included in the article; it's only consequential opinions and interpretations that need to be attributed to secondary sources, not the facts. With regards my brief summary of the accident report above: there's a reason why I posted that here, rather than in the article, and that's because it would need much more careful wording in the article in order to accurately follow the report's meaning.

Although I disagree with Patrol forty, I would like to thank them for their extensive comments here, and I would very much encourage them to get more involved in creating new Wikipedia content, as they clearly have a lot of very useful experience and insights.

In general, I am concern that this is turning into a very long deletion debate. I think it would have been better if the non-admin closure had decided the matter, and we could focus on developing the mainspace content instead. I won't close this discussion myself, as I'm involved in the discussion, but I would encourage another admin to close it sooner rather than later. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 18 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 deleted as hoax. This article is a fabricated autobiography. The subject's name is not mentioned in the official credits of any movie. All the "references" are unreliable (such as blogs and user-contributed sites). The creator has a Facebook page, where he has uploaded various photos claiming that these were taken at his production house or his auditions. A simple reverse image search proves that these images are lifted from other sources. It's obvious that this guy is simply trying to fabricate a false identity. utcursch | talk 06:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Chand Meena[edit]

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

Does not appear a notable person to me.Sources are also not reliable. Param Mudgal ^talk? 11:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Commander Squadron Leader Clarence Melbourne Clucas MBE[edit]

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

Other than the utterly laughable title, this appears to be the very badly-written bio of a mid-ranking officer with a low-level service award and not a lot of notability. Seems to be part of someone's genealogy project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to meet the threshold for notability. EricSerge (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lieutenant Commander Squadron Leader Who?? Fails notability. --ChristopheS (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: submitter also copy-pasted same draft (in Read mode, so coding jacked up) into WP:AFC and submitted today as well, so my sense is submitter wants to go back to drafting it. Can we just move it to "Draft:XYZ" and let submitter work on it there? Though with the caveat that this figure does not appear to meet Notability in whatever case? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator Philg88 ^♦talk 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Horizons[edit]

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

Non-notable housing estate. Delete or redirect to Private housing estates in Hong Kong Philg88 ^♦talk 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this seems to require a wider discussion on all Hong Kong housing estates. Most estates listed on Private housing estates in Hong Kong have relatively well developed articles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hello Philg88 please define a notable housing estate in Hong Kong, or are you questioning notability of all HKG housing estates? This housing estate is a the terminus of the Hong Kong MTR extension South Horizons Station. Philg88 you questioning the merit of housing estates in HKG having pages? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Zanhe, Jtbobwaysf: In this case, if you strip out all the travel guide/gazeteer stuff, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia in the first place, you are left with a basic description of where South Horizons is, when it was built and how many residential units it contains, which by no means makes it notable. These details can easily be covered in Private housing estates in Hong Kong. This topic area is similar to the various AfDs that have arisen in connection with List of streets and roads in Hong Kong - just like roads, some private housing estates are notable, some aren't and this one isn't. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Zanhe, Philg88: I disagree that it is similar to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. I guess there are 20 or more housing estates that are listed in wikipedia, and if you propose to delete those then there should be a general discussion to as to all of them and a selection/notability criteria established. Singling out particular estates one by one and deleting them through AfD is the wrong protocol in my opinion. Maybe the community will agree with you and seek to move all housing estates to one page, who knows. But it at least should be addressed in that manner. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point. The proposal is to redirect this non-notable article topic to Private housing estates in Hong Kong, not delete it outright. There doesn't need to be a general discussion as the guidelines are quite clear—if a topic does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Maybe Jtbobwaysf is not missing the point that much: your nomination reads "Delete or redirect", not redirect only. Olivier (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here South China Morning Post alone has three pages of tagged articles. I guess if you add the other regional newspapers it will be more than 100 articles. And if you add the MTR extension news articles maybe it will exceed 1000...http://www.scmp.com/topics/south-horizons Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are passing mentions of South Horizons or news reports of local events. The fact that residents think there aren't enough post boxes and that sometimes there are car crashes nearby does not make the estate notable. Wikipedia is is not a newspaper and topics require in depth and significant coverage, which this isn't. Overall, the quality of search results matters more than the raw number. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that South China Morning Post has a tag for it on its website means it is notable enough and/or in the news frequent enough to merit a tag. I doubt they tag everything in Hong Kong. The search term "South Horizons Hong Kong" yields 474 hits in google books. https://www.google.com/search?q=south+horizons&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22south+horizons%22+hong+kong&tbm=bks&start=50 . The google search term "South Horizons Hong Kong yields 116,000 web page hits. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22south+horizons%22+hong+kong&biw=1280&bih=673&source=lnms&sa=X&psj=1&psj=1&psj=1&psj=1&ei=lucVVKD3IcKrogTVxIGABw&ved=0CAUQ_AUoADgy ... That is far more citations that the normal page that goes up for AfD Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS for more information on the validity of Google search results. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Philg88, WP:GOOGLEHITS states one should look further to google books. Note the 474 hits in google books. The other AfDs I have seen might have had 1-2 google books hits, or maybe ten. I have never seen an AfD nomination that had approaching 500 google books hits... South Horizong has a long history in Hong Kong, which started as the Hongkong Electric Company Ap Lei Chau power station (which has no wikipedia page, and is instead a re-direct), then today continues as a very large development (almost large enough to be a village in many countries), and now into the future as the terminus for the major/historic Hong_Kong_MTR extension of the South Island Line. It seems your suggestion is broader than is being disclosed here, in that you promote deleting (you call a redirect) the list of pages in wikipedia that do not meet some obscure and undefined notability guideline. (You have listed, wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a guidebook, etc.) But this fails to deal with the fact that the Ap Lei Chau Power Station power station was wiki page was also deleted (redirected) to Hongkong Electric Company. Thus your suggestion appears to be that neither the former power station, nor the current housing estate are notable. Or are you proposing you will re-create Ap Lei Chau Power Station, and the re-direct the South Horizons? I guess you are not offering to do this. This notion of deleting data 'to organize through redirect' is destructive to wikipedia for clearly valuable entries... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. With 31,496 inhabitants, South Horizons is the most populous estate (private or public) in the Southern District of Hong Kong (there are 18 districts). Such a population figure would be the one of a rather large village, indeed. As a comparison, 57% of the 36,569 communes of France have fewer than 500 inhabitants. Olivier (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Housing estates can be notable, if it has received non-trival coverage in reliable sources. (e.g. coverage of its historic value or architectural importance ,zh:哥伦比亚住宅圈 as an example.) But this one doesn't meet this standard. Further more, this is the third nomination., both of the first two were closed as delete.114.81.255.37 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the multiple AfDs 114.81.255.37, I should have mentioned that in the nomination. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although I couldn't find any guideline on the notability of urban housing estates, I think Wikipedia's policy is that all verifiable human settlements, even tiny villages, are notable. Many large housing estates in Hong Kong, including South Horizons, are essentially self-contained neighbourhoods with thousands of residents or more. South Horizons even has its own MTR station under construction. I don't see how these estates are less notable than tiny villages, or how South Horizons is less notable than the MTR station that serves it. -Zanhe (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Villiages and housing estates are two different types of things, according to WP:GEOLAND. The word "notability" in your comment reads like "importance" for me, but notability is not the same as importance. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. A housing complex does not fall within the definition of a human settlement, which in this case is Ap Lei Chau, not South Horizons. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. South Horizons housing estate is much closer to the definition of human settlement than Ap Lei Chau. Ap Lei Chau is an island, a geographical feature, which has had historical human settlements (villages), which have been replaced by housing estates. South Horizons operates as a community, with elected representatives. The island does not. Olivier (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. According to the article, South Horizons is built on the site of a former power station. By no stretch of the imagination does that count as a "historical human settlement." Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Nothing in the definition of "human settlement" requires it to be historical. Brasília, founded in 1960, certainly qualifies as a "human settlement". My point above what that the housing estates have replaced the historical settlements of Ap Lei Chau, not that they are historical themselves. Olivier (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Quite a few sources have been added and the article's quality has been significantly improved. --114.81.255.37 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The expansion has certainly established the notability of the former power station on the site, but that is not inherited by the succeeding development. South Horizons wasn't notable in 2006 nor in 2007 and it still isn't. The addition of news stories falling under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and "references" dealing with adjunct buildings such as kindergartens isn't going to change that. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The 2007 deletion certainly does not prove that the topic is not notable, as you seem to imply by linking it. The discussion was closed as "delete" after it had attracted a grand total of 2 opinions, one "weak delete" and one "delete" with the comment "Delete unless sourced to show that this particular development is notable". The discussion was relisted twice "to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached". It was closed after the second relisting had not attracted any comment. I believe that today, such an AfD discussion would be closed as "no consensus" or would be closed at a later point. Olivier (talk)
Reply Given the quality of its content and sources, the article should at least be merged. ( Argument "if you strip out all the travel guide/gazeteer stuff, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia in the first place, you are left with a basic description of where South Horizons is, when it was built and how many residential units it contains, which by no means makes it notable. These details can easily be covered in Private housing estates in Hong Kong" is no longer valid.) But keep or merge is outside AfD's scope.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this one is notable by virtue of its size and its status as a significant self-contained neighbourhood well-known among HKers, and the article is shaping up decently. Citobun (talk) 10:21, 17 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-administrator closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FC Mayabeque[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this club exists. Google returns mirrors, soccerway & fifa.com return nothing. A search for Mayabeque on soccerway finds a club called Mayabeque Güines. Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3 as a blatant hoax. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 11:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the team exists and has played in the Campeonato Nacional de Fútbol de Cuba, the top level of football in Cuba, per RSSSF. @Gbawden: you have contradicted yourself, stating that Soccerway returns nothing before going on to say that Soccerway returns 'Mayabeque Guines' - that is the same team! The name is FC Mayabque, it is based in the town of Güines. @Mr. Guye: how is this even nearly a "blatant hoax", did you bother to actually research? Giant Snowman 11:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - team clearly does exist and has played at the highest level of competition in its country. Claim that the article is a blatant hoax is blatant nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you @GiantSnowman:. I wasn't to know that they were one and the same. So... what should the name of this article be? Gbawden (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current name of 'FC Mayabeque' is fine. Giant Snowman 08:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - existence has been established Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article and Censure User:Mr. Guye for claiming it's a blatant hoax. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Akkineni[edit]

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

Too soon-just one role and a cameo (despite the fact that its a bit part not a cameo since a cameo is when you are famous already) So then nope not notable. Wgolf (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Just looked her up on the IMDB and was in something as a baby as well, also not inherited issue here. Now maybe someday. But not today! Wgolf (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A substantial portion of this text had been pasted directly from PR text appearing in many places; now removed as a WP:COPYVIO. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Wow thanks. And when her only roles are as a baby and later in a bit part (not a cameo as you have to be famous to have a cameo!) that is not notable and being part of a family does not mean you are notable either. Unless if she somehow the great granddaughter of the Queen or is George Washingtons long lost sist...(okay making that part up-but you get the point-otherwise we have every Barrymore family member on here and every family member related to Will Smith!) Wgolf (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is failing general notability guidelines and there is no indication of importance. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:08, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph Films, L.L.C[edit]

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

This film group does not meet WP:GNG. Upjav (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising with no substantial coverage. Mr. Guye (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 15 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gokhale Method[edit]

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

Non-notable topic; article is promotional Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep sources are self-pub and very much an advert, but has far too many hits on Google. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS count for nothing unless they reveal significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not seeing it. This is an altmed offering that appears to have zero mentions on PUBMED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the substantial revisions of the article. In terms of notability: I have revised the article so that the secondary sources which were presented only in the "Additional Reading" section of the article previously are now the primary source of information in the article. The reliance on these sources for the article should demonstrate notability under "significant coverage". You will also find that these are reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The article has also been revised to include the names of notable patients of the Gokhale Method. In terms of being promotional: I have removed all explicit references to the Gokhale Method's creator's website, and I have only referenced her speeches/presentations where absolutely necessary. The vast majority of the information in the article now comes from secondary sources, and these sources should be found to be reliable and independent of the subject. Finally, the information is presented in a neutral tone. Additionally, I removed the category "rehabilitative medicine" since no medical studies have been completed on the method yet. See the article's "effectiveness" section. Please see the article's talk page for more specifics. Dandem1 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dandem1 put a lot of work into the rewrite, but the coverage from independent sources is just not there. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like Esther Gokhale may be notable, where we could include a short treatment of her methodology. Gokhale Method could then be redirected to her article. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this runs afoul of WP:NFRINGE because it only affords pas sing mention in independent sources. jps (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:: Insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Particularly telling is that there is no mention of this on Pubmed. Fails all notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are only about a half-dozen sources here, the ones that do exist are solid, including New York Times and ABC News. If they are talking about this method, I suspect that a more thorough search would produce more sources. While Ms. Gokhale is quite new on the scene of postural/movement education compared to some of the classic characters (all now deceased, Alexander, Feldenkrais, and Rolf), she may be among the most significant contemporary teachers. --Karinpower (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "solid" means, but I agree the NYT ref is by far the best. It also doesn't mention the method by name, so I question how it demonstrates notability of the method. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comment is a bit misleading. The entire article is about the woman and her work. Calling her work "The Gokhale Method" is just a shorthand and I don't believe those particular words need to be written to say that the article is about her teaching method. Perhaps this is why you commented that she might be a notable person, even if her method isn't notable enough (and actually that result would be fine with me - people looking on WP for info could still find it that way). On the Con side for this article is the fact that her book is titled "8 Steps to a Pain-free Back." This title does show that she is claiming medical benefit, putting her work in the MEDRS category rather than a movement discipline which I think is actually more suited to what she is teaching. I did read her book, and some of it is good stuff (while I disagreed with some of her ideas). The majority of the text of her book is about how to move correctly, not about medical issues, FYI. Not that that matters at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 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 List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) and various other places; someone might want to check I've put them all in the right place (I wasn't sure where the Xbox and PS2 ones should go). Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of PS4 exclusive titles[edit]

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

Not sure why we have this page when we have List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) and List of PlayStation 4 games. I see List of Wii U exclusive titles was deleted for the same reasons I listed. WhereAmI (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's alright with everyone, can we blanket discuss deletion of these lists? I don't know how to do a multiple delete request if that's even possible. All of the information that these lists aim to provide are in similar articles of "List of <console> games."

List of PS2 exclusive titles

List of PS3 exclusive titles

List of Xbox exclusive titles

List of Xbox 360 exclusive titles

List of Xbox One exclusive titles

Let me know if I need to make a separate request for each one. --WhereAmI (talk) 04:05, 12 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) 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except List of PS2 exclusive titles. These lists duplicate information found in their respective "list of [console] games" articles, and again in "list of video games exclusives (seventh/eighth generation)". I can't find the PS2 exclusivity info anywhere, though, so that list should stay until it can be merged into List of PS2 games.

WhereAmI: bundling nominations is fine, and I've added the Afd notice to each of the articles you mentioned. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - We had a discussion about this at WP:VG and there was strong consensus that these articles are unnecessary/redundant to their parent articles - the ones that list all games for a system, since those articles can, and often do, have a column in them stating whether or not they are exclusive. See List of Wii U software on how a sortable column in the pre-existing articles can better document this in articles that already exist. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as redundant, as previously discussed at WT:VG. Redirects are cheap. Merge the lists that need it (PS2). czar ♔ 01:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as redundant content forks and most of the articles are all woefully unfinished. Sorry but it seems the creator has hardly put any effort into many of these (List of Xbox exclusive titles, for example, has only one game listed). At the very least they should be userfied as it is inappropriate for them to remain in mainspace in their current state. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant. While I agree with DoctorKubla that the exclusivity info needs adding to the main PS2 game list, I don't believe retaining this PS2 list is necessary in order to get that done. The PS2 has a massive library and number of exclusives compared to most consoles, so the 8 currently listed here doesn't scratch the surface. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as somewhat plausible search terms, but clearly these lists as they are represent inferior duplications of information we have elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 21 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 05:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Así en el Barrio como en el Cielo[edit]

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

Is soap opera has not yet started his recordings, has no release date, and the information that is in the articles is very little. I recommend that you create when the soap is fully confirmed Damián (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 20:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 12 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 06:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un Escenario Para Amar[edit]

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

Is soap opera has not yet started his recordings, has no release date, and the information that is in the articles is very little. I recommend that you create when the soap is fully confirmed Damián (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Samuels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Deleted at 2008 AfD; may need WP:SALTing. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 20:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a little coverage of him from last year [26] (at least I think it's him), but not enough to pass WP:NACTOR. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sourced to IMDB only" should be a deletion criteria for living people, as it is an unreliable source, but short of that, I was unable to find reliable secondary sources which would show this fellow meets WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 21 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 06:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military Foreign Language Center (Sibiu)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence in independent sources that this institution is notable. It's existed for less than twenty years; I can't find an indication of the number of students it hosts, although it offers instruction in just two languages - English and a bit of German. It's neither a high school nor a university. There seems nothing to distinguish it from any of thousands of foreign-language centers around the world, and being owned and operated by a military doesn't really change that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 12 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 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Team Salute[edit]

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

Non notable internal US Army recognition programme Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an internal U.S. Army program. Per the article, the Freedom Team Salute commendations were awarded to the parents, spouses and employers of soldiers, U.S. Army Veterans, and other members of the public. More than 2.3 million were issued. Soldiers were ineligible for this commendation and the program was not internal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmingus (talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 12 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neurolinguistic approach to second- (or foreign-) language acquisition[edit]

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

Not apparently a notable program--few references other than the developers, and applied only in a very few schools. I consider this essentially promotional for their theory. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like a press release. Needs some real third party coverage like mainstream media but that is lacking. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Appears to be largely copy-pasted from [27] -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Joseph[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO. All available sources are unreliable, given references are primary, press releases or dead links. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the ingredients include luxury branding firm, top brand strategists, lifestyle goods, brand management, popular blogs, featured famous personalities, notable shows, the editorial world, many high end luxury brands, leading clothing lines, favored by many celebrities: this is beautiful. -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I wholeheartedly agree with Hoary, I must !vote that this beautiful example of the genre Vanispamcruftisement be deleted due to lack of notability of its subject. There are a lot of references, but you don't have to dig too deeply into them to see that the WP:BIO notability criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources have not been met. Of the two POSHGLAM.com sources cited, one is an insignificant little blurb about Joseph, and the other leads to an error message. The Haute Shot site is a "personal inspiration blog for all things awesome," and Joseph has a photo credit, but there's no coverage of him at all. The Wireimage.com link doesn't support the statement in the article that cites it. The tumblr citation is tumblr, so not independent or particularly reliable. The marketwire.com source is a press release that doesn't mention Joseph. The two reserveresult.com links are to guest blog posts that Joseph wrote, they're not about him. If this article survives the AfD, it needs a serious rewrite to remove peacocky puffery. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, I'm personally inspired sorry I mean persuaded by Dawn Bard's awesome argument. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:DELAFD: "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." In this case, the nominator has made the same nomination 4 times in 3 months. Andrew (talk) 08:14, 14 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)

Can we just reach a consensus on this damn thing already? Three AFD's have closed as "no consensus" on the verge that people can't agree whether repeatedly being cited by Snopes or a few scattered mentions elsewhere equal reliable coverage. I say no. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK section 2. I voted to delete in the last AfD but after three no decisions in roughly two months it is time for the nom to accept that the community is not of one mind on this one and drop the stick. I operate on the three strikes rule. You get three swings with the bat. If you can't get a hit after three swings, and the basic facts of the case haven't changed, then it's time to move on. We have reached the point where this is a vexatious nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK section 2. This has been nominated for deletion four times within a period of a little over two months. These nominations are excessive, and I think that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated that there is no consensus to delete this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: and @Spirit of Eagle:: You both clearly missed that the last AFD was closed as WP:NPASR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three "No consensuses" within a period of two months. Yes, no consensuses closed as NPASR can be re-nominated, but in this situation I believe it has been demonstrated that there is no support for a delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - 4 times in the space of one year ... I suggest the nominator WP:DROPTHESTICK and moves on .... Since my last quick closure ended up with me at teh dramah boards I won't close this but suggest an admin does!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep on same grounds as above three !votes. We have limited resources, perma-AfDs are not a good idea. Try again in a year if you must.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:53, 12 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IT Asset & Service Management[edit]

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

US Air Force programme with no lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete—Not seeing any coverage at all in reliable, third-party sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:40, 28 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 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:08, 12 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 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosenkranz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't believe he passes WP:AUTHOR with just one book. The sources in this article are not reliable - even the NYT article gives his personal story, as do the interviews. There is some news coverage around the release of his book but I don't believe his notable Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:SOLDIER - The carreer as a soldier is not notable in itselve. The 3 interviews are not sufficient to state that subject is recognized by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. -- Taketa (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to keep. Clarityfiend provides sufficient sources, combined with sources provided on the first nomination, to fulfil general notabilitu criteria. -- Taketa (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Undecided. He fails SOLDIER, but his book's gotten some favorable reviews,[28][29] he gets a few paragraphs about his post-military career in the Washington Post and USA Today, and there's an NPR interview.[30]. There's also this long article, the first half about him, by the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service,[31] (HighBeam sub. probably needed) and he seems to be considered some sort of aviation expert in several accidents just because he's a veteran Delta Airlines pilot.[32][33] Definite delete for his wingman "Gonzo" Guildenstern, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, although the subject themselves does not appear to have met WP:GNG, he does fall under notable per WP:AUTHOR, as shown by the sources provided by • Gene93k.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I'm not seeing significant coverage in the articles I can see readily, the Washington Post, and USA Today articles aren't really about Rosenkrantz, and other voices are heard. The New York Times piece is by Rosenkrantz - though it's more about his experience of taking amphetamine on missions than an analysis of Tarnak Farm, if the article stays that could do with re-phrasing - but is that RS? It's not a third party account. The CNN interviews aren't extensive - his opinions are being sought but not in depth. Also telling for me is that since 2007, all we have in the article on this person is - he flew for the air force, he wrote a book, he flew for Delta. Are we looking at a permanent stub? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:07, 18 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia (band)[edit]

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

DOes not appear to met WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - not notable. --Bdboyc (talk) 19:23, 12 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 List of Tainos. There doesn't appear to be any notability shown, but redirects are cheap, so ... Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huarea[edit]

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

A local village chief, mentioned once in an old book. No indication that he was or is in any way notable, it's not the kind of notable ancient person where other writings about him have been lost, but simply someone of very limited interest. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

at best ~~Very Weak Keep~~ -- The chances are that he is mentioned in one primary source and that noone knows anything else about him. I am thus dubious about keeping the article, and would prefer it if it could be merged somewhere, but Where? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(changed vote) Delete -- as no one has taken the trouble to support its retention, I see deletion as the only alternative. I would nevertheless have preferred to redirect somewhere Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- List of Taínos would be a possible redirect target - it already has an entry for Huarea, with about half the information given here. However, I am not quite clear whether the list is supposed to include non-notable entries. PWilkinson (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Included in very famous book. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: "Mentioned", you mean. We routinely delete things mentioned in very famous books, or redirect them to the book if the book article mentions the subject. We don't keep things just because they are mentioned in very famous books. But the question is of course, which very famous book? That by the very famous writer Diego Mendez de Segura? Not really a topic of interest[34]. Or do you mean the source given at the bottom, [35]? Not a very significant book either. So please, DGG, which very famous book would that be? Fram (talk) 06:59, 22 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanto Amor (telenovela)[edit]

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

The telenovela is not yet confirmed, there is no internet promotional, or is due for release, and the current item information is very little. I recommend that the item will be created in 2015 or when the soap is actually confirmed. Until all there are only rumors. Damián (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:58, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 12 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Projects[edit]

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

An article based on unreliable sources since 2004. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 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) 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only video game reliable sources search hit was a passing mention. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thet did win the demo competition at Assemble 1993. As reported by a reliable source.[36] // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Behold, what wikipedia looked like in 2004! Hard to argue this is notable under 2014 standards.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we have reliable sources saying they won at least two awards thus fulfilling WP:NONPROFIT. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winning two awards at Assembly apparently isn't enough to receive extended press because other than those two sentences, we can't source anything else about this group to reliable sources. czar ♔ 12:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sourcing issue, not a notability issue. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two are one and the same. Significant coverage is the first prong of the general notability guideline. czar ♔ 11:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources with significant coverage, so this fails WP:GNG. Last involvement appears to be from 2001 so it's unlikely to gain more notability in the future. Current available sources would make this article a permastub at best. It is my opinion that WP:NONPROFIT does not apply. -- intgr [talk] 11:46, 19 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ReCaged[edit]

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

Non-notable subject supported by primary sources only, searching brought up no usable material. Яehevkor ✉ 09:34, 3 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) 15:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) "rollcaged" and "rollcagex" did not have any hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- game software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts and developers' sites, but no significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm new to this situation, so please forgive me if my arguments are void. Like most small floss projects, there are few 3rd party references. The only exception I can find is the entry on Free Software Directory (with content and verification by fsf members). Since the project does exist, removing the entire article seems overkill. However, claims requiring 3rd party verification could be removed until such references appear.RCX Slinger (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary coverage of the topic exists, we can't write a verifiable article about it. The linked directory appears to be a user-generated wiki and is not a reliable source. czar ♔ 17:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid articles need to be supported by a majority of third party sources, primary sources can be used but only when necessary. Third party coverage also helps establish a subject's notability, without which subjects cannot have a presence on Wikipedia. Without significant coverage from reliable third party sources this game simple isn't notable, I did a search before submitting this article here and was unable to come up with anything, the fsf.org link is an open wiki cannot be considered reliable. We'd be looking for sources such as news publications, magazines etc. Яehevkor ✉ 17:23, 20 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeya Khanna[edit]

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

Actress who falls under too soon. She has just a few roles so far-but someday she might deserve a page-just not yet. (maybe in a couple years she will get one) Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - sadly can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not meets the general notability guidelines and WP:NACTOR. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete toosoon. Can't see significant coverage in third party sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources include in-depth treatment here paragraph here, inaugurating a store here, major mentions here, coverage here, major mentions in film review here, mention here, major coverage here, suggesting in total she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Notability is not the concern, the question is why too soon? — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin:, not sure about the rationale about WP:TOOSOON; my sense is the WP:GNG is the dominant test here. And I don't think it's "too soon" when this actress is getting major attention in the Bollywood world. If you feel she's notable, then I don't understand how a 'too soon' argument would undermine this notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: In countries like India actors and politicians have significant coverage in the reliable sources, but I don't think that this actress have. If notability makes a sense then what's the use of toosoon, is it waste of time? You have mentioned few links in order to meet the notability (GNG) which contain a single domain reference from tribuneindia.com (one source) and other from itimes which again lacks significant coverage and other from glamsham.com which I don't think is the reliable source. Well, these are my views you may agree or disagree and must say I have no WP:COI. Thank you!— CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This actress may meet the general notable guidelines as @Tomwsulcer: suggested above but it is very clear that this article/actress failing NACTOR which says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions but I cannot see any such roles in any notable films. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know there is a debate in Wikipedia about whether subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NACTOR should trump guidelines like the WP:GNG. Some people favor the subject-specific; my understanding of the current consensus is that if a subject passes either the GNG or the NACTOR guideline, then they're notable, and I am basing that understanding on the following: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject from WP:BASIC, with the next paragraph down under "Additional criteria" saying that People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. That is, a person could fail to meet the WP:ENT guideline which says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions but still be notable by the GNG. But as always I am willing to go along with whatever the community decides.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Thank you for highlighting the concepts and wiki guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. The coverage of her so far has been mostly routine or insignificant. Ribbon-cuttings and interviews about shopping don't count toward WP:GNG. If she comes to pass WP:NACTOR then we should have an article. Lagrange 613 20:19, 20 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if your job is small[edit]

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

No reliable source available to attribute this poem to any one person, or to verify the author's claim of alteration from the original. Without any sources to call on, all we have is a brief nugget with anonymous attribution. Appropriate for WikiQuote, perhaps, but not for the encyclopedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This does seem more suitable to WikiQuote. However, there are indications that this may actually be notable: [37], [38], [39], . I think more research is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It is well-known, and oft-quoted. But WP:N means something different: the poem would have to have been the subject of independent coverage. I.e. not just quoted, but someone actually taking the time to write an article about the poem: analysis, historical significance, possible authorship, things like that. As it is, all we have is a poem, with no context. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 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) 16:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no meaningful content on the page, just the rhyme itself. --Gccwang (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like either nobody wants to do the requisite research or they can't find any better sources than me. I guess I'll go with deletion. It can always be recreated later if better sources are found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Not enough reliable sources regarding the poem.-- danntm ^T _C 17:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of reliable sources. —Swpb^talk 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG that, in addition to failing the notability threshold, means that sufficient material has not been found to write a worthwhile article. More fundamentally, such text as there is fails WP:V, that is policy. For example, most sources e.g. this, do not attribute the poem. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:34, 20 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. standard practice for places DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhey pind[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, I am sure it exists (although google maps couldn't) but no indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it exists, WP:GEOLAND will be met, since wikipedia has a gazetteer function. But I'm struggling to prove its existence. ~~Anyway, a redirect to Jalandhar district does no harm.~~ Keep per its verified existence.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shekhey pind mainly exists in Wikipedia mirrors. Searching for Sheikhe pind in Jalandhar district gets several its for its post office. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It exists (as agreed by nom), has a post office, with a PINCODE of 144025.^[1] It maybe that the better spelling is Shekhe Pind. Under that spelling, at the Indian census page we find that it has the village code of 030344.^[2] Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 28 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) 16:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per excellent research done by User:Carlossuarez46 above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 21 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CE Arrels[edit]

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

I am struggling to determine if this club exists. A search on Soccerway.com and FIFA.com returns nothing. The ref listed in the article makes no mention of this team Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment, yes, the club exists, this is its official site. Some news in a local website, [40], [41], [42]. Cavarrone 17:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may well exist but that does not make it notable. Giant Snowman 11:37, 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) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 12 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 12:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Armed forces rank flags[edit]

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

I propose deleting this orphaned article which combines some information from Army ranks and insignia of India, Naval ranks and insignia of India and Air Force ranks and insignia of India All the information on this page is already there. A redirect wouldn't work as there is no one page to redirect to Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect a merger (with redirect) will be alright, but should be done carefully. (I agree with few last lines of the nominator. ). CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 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) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 12 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. Without prejudice to an article on The Geology Trusts. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucestershire Geology Trust[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A page on the umbrella organisation The Geology Trusts might be worthwhile and could list the member trusts, but I can't see the need for a page about an individual local trust. Qwfp (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Receiving a grant doesn't confer notability and the only other source is a 1 sentence mention in a section dedicated to UK local geological groups. Does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:47, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a plausible redirect to Regionally important geological site. If we are going to have an article on the umbrella organisation called The Geology Trusts, it would probably make more sense to move this article to that location and rework it, than to start from scratch. Since this has been included in a book on the history of geoconservation, it ought to be possible to fit this in somewhere by redirecting or moving it. (Hint: look at the context in which the book places it). James500 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I read this index correctly, it has two pages of coverage in Geology Today in addition to the aforementioned book and the BBC news article. There are some other results in GScholar. James500 (talk) 16:57, 5 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 19:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Worthy organisation but simply fails our notability guidelines. I agree a The Geology Trusts page would be good but there is nothing substantial on the umbrella organisation, here, to justify moving/editing this page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:18, 20 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 12:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Tryna[edit]

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

Music of unclear notability. Article fails WP:Notability (music) in its current state. No attempt made to establish its WP:Notability. Wikicology (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Wikicology (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that it charted, which would seem to me to satisfy WP:NSONG #1. Can you comment on that, and why you still believe it fails NMUSIC? Also, this might just be how you worded your nomination, but the article's "current state" is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted, as is the "attempt" (i.e., "effort"?) other editors have made to develop it. What matters is the topic's potential. What "attempt" did you make, per WP:BEFORE, prior to nominating this? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:postdlf the question you should as yourself is “if satisfying one criteria satisfy the other criteria”? 2. If notability is based on satisfying only one criteria?. 3. Why the article creator and other contributors fails to establish its notability with reliable sources? 4. Why your auguments is centered on a single criteria. 5. Why you had not made effort to add reliable sources before or after your comments here. 6. Why it has not won significant awards or honors. 7. Why it has not been independently performed by another Notable musician.Wikicology (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your nomination, not mine, so it's up to you to justify it. Nor am I making an "augument" [sic], but I'm instead asking you questions so as to analyze your rationale. I stumbled across this AFD when you mistakenly added it to the list-related deletion discussions; I have no investment in or history with this article, not that it would matter, as WP:NOEFFORT is not a deletion rationale. Is your argument that a song must satisfy all the criteria of NSONG? That's not a consensus-supported interpretation, so far as I am aware. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this MTV write-up [43] but I'm neutral as to whether it, in combination with its chart appearance, is sufficient to warrant a standalone page. At the least, the title a plausible search term and can be redirected to O (Omarion album). Gongshow talk 16:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article fails WP:NSONG which clearly stipulated that a song is notable if it satisfy the criteria below: if it

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs and singles are notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.From my WP:NPOV, I won't consider 1/3 a pass. Wikicology (talk) 17:45, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:49, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't usually !vote in this field, but the quote from NSONG given just above by Wikicology is out of context. In the guideline, the list of the 3 factors is preceded by "The following factors suggest that a song or single "may" be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." To me, the word "suggest" clearly indicates that they are additive: factors all of which need to be considered, but no single one of which is definitive, either for or against notability (The aforementioned criterion is "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.") As a guideline, this seems to be to offer great latitude in both directions, making any individual decision a matter of judgment, even more so than most notability guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maculata[edit]

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

A disambiguation page that is a collection of links to disambiguation page (24 out of 25 given links) is not useful. The Banner talk 09:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd assume that the reason why this page exists is that there are such a large number of species using this name that a single disambiguation page would be of unwieldy length. I'd disagree: long it certainly would be, but having all the species on the same page would make the task of finding out which spotty living thing was being referred to rather less tiresome: so really I think that the best thing to do would be to merge all the other disambig pages into this one. Incidentally there is a similar page at Repens, and there are very possibly others.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion at this point, but having all of the species listed on a single disambiguation page would result in an invalid dab page. Acrolophus maculata is not ambiguous with Fabraea maculata or Haemanota maculata or any of the dozens of other individual species. Strictly speaking, I think this page is more of a set index than a dab page. older ≠ wiser 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was originally a redirect to Cattleya elongata. To be true, a redirect that I don't understand. To make matters worse, there was no explanation given for the change to disambiguation page. The Banner talk 21:12, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user has created a whole series of these pages, originally as redirects to one particular species in each case, although in the vast majority of cases there is more than one (and in many cases, like this one, FAR more than one) organism to which the epithet refers. I agree with what was said above about it being more of a list of organisms bearing the epithet than a disambiguation. The more general (and much broader) question, then, is do we want to have such lists here in a systematic way (and obviously there would be many thousands of them for full coverage, since all species are notable) or not? There is also the gender question to be considered (i.e. maculatus has the same meaning as maculata and is effectively equivalent except for genus gender). Don't know if this is a subject for an RFC or what, but something needs to be done to flag it so a broader biological audience will see the general question and have an opportunity to comment. Koumz (talk) 16:38, 5 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How is this different from having a page Spotted with links to Spotted hyena, Spotted flycatcher, Spotted bass, etc.? Whether it's considered a dab page or a set index article ("a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name ... of a specific type means that they share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name"), this fails our inclusion criteria. I don't think the fact that the listed items are all organisms satisfies the guideline that they all be of a specific type (especially considering the examples offered at WP:NOTDAB). Deor (talk) 13:57, 12 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Yafim Weinstein[edit]

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

Another religious murder but seems entirely lacking notability, unless i'm missing something. scope_creep talk 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure that this article meets the notability guidelines. It appears to be a typical murder - as a rule, murders are not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be confused, giving a "Keep" != vote with a "delete" rationale. Edison (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Switched. Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the murder was a hate crime, that the murderers were identified during investigation of an arms-smuggling/terrorism ring, and the fact that the murderers were arrested in Africa while en route to join Al Qaida makes this murder notable.ShulMaven (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your vote, but I have to say that's an unusual rationale. No detail about a crime can make it intrinsically notable—not even links to arms smuggling or al-Qa'ida—only the existence of reliable sources about it. I grant you that those kind of details probably draw the interest of reliable sources, but ultimately it's the sources, not the details, that the notability guideline cares about.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem to establish notability. Everyking (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a murder which means it's non notable. By their nature, they have sources, because they are investigated by police, tried at court (usually) and sentenced, then reported on. If it is a heinous crime, the usually the local paper(s) will report it, international if it is a serial killer. But the problem is that there are 10's of thousands of murders every day across the world, a certain percentage are weird, complex, strange, international, wicked, truly evil, but ultra common. Every know combinations of events, people, fetishes, types, types of people, places etc. They simply are not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory, which it will become if we start recording common murders, even if it is a wee but exotic. I can remember at least 8 murders in the last 25 years involving gun running. scope_creep talk 21:46 05 September 2014 (UTC)
- All murders are non-notable? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) keep. I'm not aware of a separate rule for the notability of murders (although even if I was, I'd probably doubt its value), so as usual the issue rests on sources. I'd say this is a borderline case since the mentions are somewhat brief, but I do see independent attention from sources including Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, and CNN. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
adding wider range of sources. It was an Al Qaeda cell, so there was coverage, CNN, et.. Yafim, Yefim - transliterations vary.ShulMaven (talk) 22:30, 8 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I noticed this AfD on its initial listing and felt then that it probably should be deleted, but I decided to wait to see if there was going to be additional content that might indicate notability. However, there has been none, it appears that it is not a notable enough event, so I will now say delete it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability reached through WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 16 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 original version of this article is a foundational copyvio from 2012 obits. While I suspect that the any new article would need to be written about the invention and not the man, we can't support this text in any case. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter W. Gauer[edit]

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

Tagged for notability, not sure this person is notable. Most of the refs from google books are directory type entries. Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NPERSON Found multiple references but they are not secondary . [44] feels like a good source, but it was from the company that Walter started. So before any further references are found. I'll go with Delete.TheQ Editor (Talk) 17:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is much information regarding the machine Mr. Gauer invented however they are in book and magazines that are not available online. One write up is in "Metal Center News" February 1975 issue, there was also a write up in "World Industrial Reporter" in 1975, "Iron Age" February 1965, "Modern Metals" 1964, There was a Spanish article in "Reportero Industrial" 1964, Several "New Equipment Digest" 1964, as well as many others. I just cannot find any of this information in a digital format, is there away to site not online write ups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.193.142 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@68.37.193.142:, Yes I agree that the invention is definitely notable, but not the inventor. The notability guideline states that the subject has to be the subject of discussion of multiple secondary sources. So we're talking about the inventor, not the invention. Hope this makes it clear. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 16:19, 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 15:53, 22 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 00:46, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 19:01, 11 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitumen-based fuel[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability and unreferenced for over six years without anyone resolving it. I could not establish its WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would seem that the only company making any progress in this field is Orimulsion and they already have an article here. There probably needs to be a discussion about whether that company is notable enough for an article but either way I think the best solution is for the two articles to be merged under one or the other title. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Stalwart111 that the best solution would be merging Bitumen-based fuel and Orimulsion articles. There has been a merge discussion but with not very active participation. I personaly think that Orimulsion should be merged into Bitumen-based fuel and not other way around as we should cover the topic in general and not to promote certain brands. E.g. we don't have an article title Prozac which is the most famous brand of that drug but we have instead of this a title Fluoxetine which is more brand-neutral. As for notability, I think that e.g. this UK Parliament briefing paper, which starts with "Fuels derived from bitumen (e.g. Orimulsion)..." makes clear that Orimulsion is just one of bitumen-based fuels and at the same time establish notability of the topic. Beagel (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 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, Sandstein 07:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Orimulsion. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:57, 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 01:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose based on the above we should really be looking to keep (no consensus) this and merge Orimulsion into this topic, rather than the other way around. As Beagel quite rightly points out, if we have an article it should focus on the technology, not a particular company and it's products. The option to merge seems to have support but the merge target should probably be this title rather than the company. I wonder if Boleyn would be comfortable with that solution - closing this AFD as no consensus and merging the two articles under this title with a redirect (which could probably be done boldly given the general consensus here). We could ask NorthAmerica if he would be willing to close this on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced, as this article is still wholly unreferenced (always a concern when merging) and I don't think it's been established that this is a notable topic for an article. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From my perspective, the two articles, Orimulsion and "Bitumen-based fuel", may discuss two different topics. Orimulsion appears to reference a mixture of naturally occurring bitumen (i.e., from oil sands), water and surfactant. This "Bitumen-based fuel" article seems to start by discussing the heavy residue left at the end of the refining process. The substances may be chemically similar (although substantial differences may exist, especially as to trace substances). If the article is referencing a refined product, I might have suggested merging into and re-directing to Bitumen, but that re-directs to Asphalt and the market for "asphalt" (at least from a U.S. definition) would not be fuel. Further and contrary to the article, "asphalt" is not the "bottom of the barrel". The refinery bottom of barrel is referred to as "pitch" (most often when marketed as roof or other sealant) or "carbon black". Another low-value (but not bottom of barrel) refinery output is "bunker fuel". Bunker fuel is typically the low-value fuel produced by refineries. Petroleum pitch is sometimes used as fuel, but that is not common and I am not aware of it being commonly referred to as "bitumen-based fuel" On the other hand, to the extent the article is actually discussing Orimulsion, then it should re-direct to the Orimulsion article. I do not recommend re-directing the Orimulsion article to this article as I am not aware of "bitumen-based fuel" as being common in the energy industry or elsewhere.--Rpclod (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I referred above, this UK Parliament briefing paper says "Fuels derived from bitumen (e.g. Orimulsion)..." makes clear that Orimulsion is just one of the bitumen-based fuels. Beagel (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for providing the link to the briefing paper. I read through it. The only possible suggestion that other fuels are "derived" from bitumen is the implicit suggestion in the use of the abbreviation "e.g.". However, nowhere does the article state that other bitumen-derived fuels actually exist, much less list any. In fact, the article indicates that the only similar fuels to Orimulsion are coal and heavy fuel oil (essentially the bunker fuel that I reference above). Please also note that the paper does not use the term "bitumen-based fuels". As bitumen is refined in many refineries (often as dilbit), one could say that gasoline, diesel and other refined products are bitumen-derived fuels and, in that case, many other articles already cover the subject. The only bitumen-based fuel appears to be Orimulsion. I think that this article has fatal flaws because its subject is just a phrase that is not even commonly used, the article reads like original research, and - apart from Orimulsion - the subject is not a real issue.--Rpclod (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep - I think it's workable, and I also don't agree with redirecting it to a specific company that happens to be involved in it. I don't think it's good policy. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:26, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A general and notable technique not necessarily tied to Orimulsion. See: [45], [46], [47], [48] ~KvnG 23:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles that KvnG lists relate to the purported subject of the article. The articles discuss diluted bitumen (dilbit), synthetic crude, and generally bitumen as a feedstock to refineries. Other than Orimulsion, bitumen is not commonly used as a fuel.--Rpclod (talk) 14:30, 12 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. Article does need to be expanded, though. The sources Babitaarora provided should be included. (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chahe Leela[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. PROD contested as the article claims that "the song topped various charts". The provided reference also says so but just in the vague manner without detailing anything. Topping charts, where chart is undefined, is not really a notable thing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INDAFD: Ram Chahe Leela

Keep It appears that WP:GNG is met,[49][50] which would have this meet WP:NSONG per having "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Perhaps this could be merged to performing artist Priyanka Chopra or composer Sanjay Leela Bhansali or to the film Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela as, at the very least, its coverage would have it be worth a sourced mention at these several targets if not kept. But deletion? I think no. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 13 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 01:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable as a separate entry. should be merged with the movie article Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:12, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per failure to meet WP:SONG. Reading through this source shows that this song has gained some popularity and maybe even potential that it may become notable in the future, but it's too soon for it to be an independent article. Merge, if anything. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Oshwah, but WP:SONG requires that a song has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," and this one has.[51][52] So how is you feel it has not met the requirements? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MichaelQSchmidt. I really appreciate you for bringing fourth those sources and for pointing out my flaws when imposing the rule of WP:SONG. After re-evaluating the policy, and my decisions behind my vote, I am changing it to 'keep'. Again, your response to my vote was appropriate and I thank you very much. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the above debate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 18:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NSONG as per [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. Babita arora 05:34, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3100 W. Big Beaver Road[edit]

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

I'm not an expert on notability of buildings but this article doesn't indicate why this building is notable. I don't believe it has lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the Crain's reference that was already in the article, there is some newspaper coverage from when KMart moved out; it was designed by a prominent architectural firm and comes up in lists of their work (there's a postcard offered for sale by a dealer that notes the modular design); it gets 3 pages in an architectural journal's 1974 theme issue on corporate headquarters; and it has a state historic marker. I've rearranged the article and added references, and the journal treatment as further reading since I can't see it online. It's more notable than the failed plan to redevelop the site, Pavilions of Troy (and now has incoming links from there and from the architecture firm). But the HQ of the Kresge Foundation across the road is more architecturally notable. I suspect there is more regional newspaper coverage that Google isn't showing me, both from when the building opened and from the plans and attempted purchases after it closed. At present I believe it squeaks by, but I hope others can find more, on- or off-line. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 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 02:26, 2 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 18:57, 11 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 Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railway Institute of Transportation Management[edit]

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

Doubtful corporation notability. The article is depending solely on the subject's own website and has been tagged for sourcing since 5 years. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 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 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways. I have some sympathy with articles on internal entities of Indian Railways, given its scale, but only where notability norms can be demonstrated. Hindustan Times has a 2005 piece on bureaucratic position-play in this organisation, but that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How? With which argument do you support that vote? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 2 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested--a good solution, because it can be expanded when sources are foun d. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:06, 18 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) 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New American Funding[edit]

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

Enough indication of notability to pass speedy A7, but I don;t think there is actual notability. Inclusion on a "fastest growing" list tends to mean "not yet notable", and the other awards are similarly minor. The sources are primarily local, the sort that will celebrate any local enterprise, and are there undiscriminating. The only really reliable on is Inc., but they merely included the company name on a list there, which is not substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC). DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 6 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could find no independent coverage in a search, just press releases and blogs. Even a reference in the article that looked like it was from the New York Times was actually a press release. The awards are minor and some of them are suspect (we don't know what criteria Inc. used to name the biggest job creators in California, but their results seem so out of line with expectations that I don't give them any credence). --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources covering it.-- danntm ^T _C 17:52, 15 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 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samson For President[edit]

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

Nothing indicates that he meets WP:MUSBIO. Article relies on his own website, believe he fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the guidelines mentioned by nominator, unless improved with better references and indication of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find a lot of media coverage, particularly for Papa’s Old Piano and under his real name, Martin Wahlgren Bejarano, including 3 articles all about either it or him plus the Nyhetsmorgon interview that was already alluded to, and have filled out the article a bit while cutting down the peacock descriptions. There is mention on his website of at least one further newspaper article, in Dagens Nyheter, that is not online, but I believe he now demonstrably meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 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) 16:44, 3 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Yngvadottirs found coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 17 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinjar massacre[edit]

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

Much of this article is a repetition of what is said in the Wiki article Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State. The rest could easily be incorporated into that article. P123ct1 (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 6 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 16:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Despite the repetition and other issues of the article, it delivers the information more specifically concerning the military offensive/genocide launched by ISIS. This article has more battle stats and other useful info, and any issues can be repaired in the long run, so it should be kept. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one on-topic sentence in the whole article: "According to some reports as many as 500 Yazidis were massacred in the ISIS attack and its aftermath". This is not enough to sustain the article under its current title. Unless an alternative title can be found, or a lot more on-topic content, I'm inclined to say delete and merge with Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MAD. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally named Battle of Sinjar. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State as per nom.~Technophant (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much more specific informations about the military offensive etc. Merging or deleting this article would not benefit the Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue or keep No deletion tools are needed. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose or in other words Strong Keep - Event was notable enough to have its own article and contains more specific information on the military offensive within which the killings occurred. Merging it would diminish the historic significance of the event within Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 21:38, 15 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) 09:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Diver[edit]

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

The woman mentioned does not meet WP:PORNSTAR criteria GiraffeBoy (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 16:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate evaluation. Fails the terms of PORNBIO, the only independent coverage appears to be a routine obituary notice, which falls well short of GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above users reasoning. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 02:48, 18 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 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Snyder[edit]

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

A minor TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 28 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 17:12, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 16:19, 11 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 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Snyder[edit]

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

A minor TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 28 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 17:15, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 16:18, 11 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 12:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Talk Show- FBC Production[edit]

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

Non-notable television show. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 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 17:17, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 16:17, 11 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 12:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ConFused5[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. No German-lang article for me to look at. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 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 17:19, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 16:17, 11 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confession (song)[edit]

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

Is this song really notable enough for a stand-alone article? Their are no claims of importance withing the article nor any meaningful references. SpinningSpark 08:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 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 17:20, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 16:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 17:47, 11 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Confession (album)[edit]

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

Unsourced, no claim of importance, and little more than a track listing SpinningSpark 08:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 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 17:20, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 16:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence found that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 17:46, 11 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem (The Confession album)[edit]

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

Unsourced, no claim of importance, and little more than a track listing SpinningSpark 08:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 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 17:21, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 16:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence found to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 17:45, 11 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 The Tab. No consensus found demonstrated here re "other biographical articles" j⚛e decker ^talk 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Marangos-Gilks[edit]

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

Non notable journalist, article created by COI "RyanAtTheTab" See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Rivlin Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this and the other biographic articles to The Tab. (Fails notability as a stand alone article.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:27, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 16:15, 11 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 12:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nerf Longshot CS-6[edit]

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

Interesting but insufficiently sourced article about a discontinued NERF product. I propose that this content should be stubbed down and then merged into NERF as this product does not seem to be independently notable. This article relies on sources such as the nerf wiki, which is obviously user-created content and does not qualify as a reliable source. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 16:14, 11 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 12:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Taehyun[edit]

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

is WP:TOOSOON, no notability outside of Winner Asdklf; (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is notable enough and should be subject for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhem Ice (talk • contribs) 19:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The said person has notability outside the group winner. I.e., YG entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayisaywhat (talk • contribs) 10:47, 28 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If notability for this person independent of the group is lacking, then redirecting to Winner (band) would be reasonable. Gongshow talk 18:03, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 16:13, 11 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. Soft delete per WP:QUORUM -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New Uncle Gregory Horror Hour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Essentially fails the major points of WP:TVSERIES. Broadcast on a local tv channel (KOZL-TV) the only sources turned up by a Google search are what you expect to find for a non-notable tv-show or film - IMdB, it's own website, and a review or two from local news outlets. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 16:13, 11 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 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard De Aragues[edit]

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

Only one film so far and its a small British film-maybe a merge with that films page. Now it is possible someday he will do more and/or gets attention with some sort of award. But for now it seems delete. (Plus its been around for a few years) Wgolf (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 16:11, 11 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) 09:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Dauman[edit]

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

Nobility not inherited issue here-granted her work sounds noble, but she seems to be more famous for who her husband is. I say a redirect/merge into his article or userfy if more info can get in. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED and plus the charities can't be that important/notable as they're not even listed here, Anyway I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:36, 12 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 13:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fearless[edit]

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

From the looks of it-maybe a merge with the page for that band or a userfy. Wgolf (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:10, 11 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OrphanSporks[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. All coverage is either hyper-local, not independent (related to the school), or is not significant enough. While there is some coverage in a cappella focused sites, it is either an insignificant level or so routine that it does not confer any notability, such as from a site that reviews all released collegiate a cappella work. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 16:08, 11 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.

^ [58]
^ [59]

[1] [58]

[2] [59]

[1]

[2]