Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 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 Delete and redirect to Downtown Disney (Walt Disney World). Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Disney[edit]

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

Store at Disney World selling Disney art sourced to the store's website. Disney stores, or stores in a theme park, are not inherently notable, and this one hasn't garnered significant coverage from secondary sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Walt Disney World~~ Downtown Disney (Walt Disney World) since ~~it's Disney-related.~~ that's where it's located. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect in the Alternative). As a single store in much larger corporate, this is not notable. I do not think there needs to be a redirect, as most people searching for the term are problem searching for the company's actual art and retail store. Nonetheless, I am amenable to a redirect, but I suggest any redirect goes to ~~Downtown Disney~~Downtown Disney (Walt Disney World), as that is where the store is actually located.-- danntm ^T _C 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying redirect to appropriate Downtown Disney.-- danntm ^T _C 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this store is notable, and, as Danntm said, most people searching for this term would probably be looking for Disney art (the store is only the third google result for art of disney), not this store (although I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect from The Art of Disney Store to Downtown Disney (Walt Disney World)). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:08, 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 keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pok Pok[edit]

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

Blatant WP:PROMO. Came up on RfD as an alternative in a search. Patently not WP:WORLDWIDE. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I may have listed this twice – Twinkle let me down at the last moment. So if you have two, please combine them: if I start fiddling it will only make it worse. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Yorker, New York Times and Oregonian sources in the article look reliable enough, and besides that I found some other coverage in reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] This seems to be enough to meet WP:CORP quite easily. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might need some work to expand it to the present situation where there are now a couple of "Pok Pok" restaurants in the US. As Thai restaurants go, this one is fairly notable. The owner and chef of Pok Pok, Andy Ricker, has won the 2011 James Beard Foundation Best Chef for NW United States with it. I do a lot of work on Thai cuisine articles here on WP and I wrote the article on this notable chef. Here are some news articles: LA-Times story on upcoming LA Pok Pok, World famous in Oregon ;-), reliable food mag, Vice magazine interview, named a "Game changer" by the NY Times, Bon Appetit magazine regularly names Pok Pok, Bon Appetit names Pok Pok number 8 in list of 20 most important restaurants of US 2013, Village voice, another Villagevoice interview. It's not often that a (chain of) restaurants gets this much exposure. It's also difficult to view Pok Pok separately from chef Andy Ricker. User:Conifer, who wrote the Pok Pok article, is someone from Oregon I saw, and probably proud that a Portland restaurant and chef became so famous. I think it might actually be a good idea to change the Pok Pok article into a redirect to the Andy Ricker article and include some additional refs there? - Takeaway (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a redirect is necessary. Just a bit of work on the article itself. It clearly meets notability standards. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hard to see how this is promotional. Many reliable sources have covered this restaurant. The New York Times has reviewed it twice, and Pete Wells even gave it two stars.[5][6]. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disclaimer: I created the article by moving content to the main space, but perhaps I should have expanded the article a bit more. Still, the article could easily be expanded from plenty of sources. Consider it a work in progress…. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 01:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination, if I may, and save us all the bother? It looked to me like a single-user account creating a single article (i.e advertising their own wares): patently it isn't with these contribs. But it did seem that way; the addition of the restaurant reviews by the sole contributor to the article tended to smell a bit fishy to me. I don't mind being wrong and that others disagree, I am fine with. Thanks for your attention. But I was not sure restaurant reviews, wherever published, really count as RS, unless RS is short for resumé: it depends who pays the bill. Si Trew (talk) 02:06, 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 Snow keep. It's clear that while WP:NOT#DICT exists, there's evidence that the article can be expanded as Altamel said and as Andrew said it's not a new word and not a dictionary entry, which places it outside the NOT#DICT scope. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle dweller[edit]

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

Neologism- yes, its been used a few times, but alas, that's true of all neologisms, WP:NOT#DICT though. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic's title is not a new word; it's a phrase composed of quite standard words. The page looks nothing like a dictionary entry - no focus on a particular word; no etymology; no grammar; no usage. Andrew (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not just a neologism, it's a phenomenon that has been covered in depth by multiple U.S. news sources. See articles by Businessweek, The New York Times, and TIME Magazine. Since this article can be expanded beyond just a dictionary definition, I !vote keep. Altamel (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between Vandwelling and Homelessness, either of which might be referred to in some instances with this name. Selectively merge content – at least the sources – as necessary. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled. Ravenswing 09:11, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rossi[edit]

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

Non-notable college American football player, fails WP:NCOLLATH. —teb728 t c 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't had a chance to do a comprehensive search to do a notability analysis yet, but this entire article is one big copyright violation per WP:COPYVIO. Looks like a straight cut-and-paste job from the Boston College sports website. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:COPYVIO permits the use of materials if permission from the author exists, please feel free to contact the copyright holder whom has permitted the use of this data to generate the framework of a wikipedia article for Nick Rossi. TheCustos (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ TheCustos. Yeah, I'll get right on that. We delete COPYVIO material from hundreds, if not thousands of Wikipedia articles every day, including both text and images. FYI, permission to use copyright materials must come from the rights holder before, not after publication, and even then Wikipedia policy has a strong preference for using "free content" material in its articles, not copyright material. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Copyright violation and fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable college football player. Apart from the obvious WP:COPYVIO mentioned above, the subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for either college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records) or football players (never played in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL, etc.). Subject received a fair amount of WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage in college, bit lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:31, 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 merge to List of Mega64 episodes. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega64 episodes (season 1)[edit]

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

Here's the odd thing: there exists List of Mega64 episodes (season 1) and List of Mega64 episodes (season 3) but List of Mega64 episodes (season 2) was apparently deleted out of hand without a discussion that I can find (neither at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mega64 episodes (season 2) nor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega64 (season 2) which was a later name). So we need to either restore season 2 or get rid of seasons 1 and 3, I would think (this is dual nomination for both articles).

Mega64 is a real thing and has an article, and there was an earlier deletion discussion for Mega 64 episodes generally, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Inside A Console (at that time each episode had an article). The decision (by me) was to merge these into season articles. The "vote" FWIW was 5/4/5 Keep/Delete/Merge, so apparently some people think or thought that individual Mega 64 episodes are or were worth describing.

But now we have a non-parallel situation (articles exist for some seasons but have been deleted for others). So let's delete these or ask for the deleted one to be restored, or merge it all into the Mega64 article (already kind of long). I don't care which.

I will point out that it's been quite a few years now and there's been no improvement in the (essentially nonexistent) refs, and any improvement seems less and less likely as times goes by. So instead of these zombie articles hanging around unref'd forever I'd be inclined to send them to the mass converter. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original S2 list was tagged with a speedy deletion for promotion and then deleted via "19:24, 2012 November 18 RHaworth deleted page List of Mega64 episodes (season 2) (Excessively promotional advertising of obscure DVD series with detailed plot summaries.)" I have looked at the page at the time of deletion and it was literally 4-5 para long plot summaries of each episode, and while I wouldn't have tagged it speedy, it would be prime deletion material per WP:NOT#PLOT. Note that this list is effective written in the same style as the S2 list was in at deletion. This is not a reflection of my opinion on this particular nom, only to help clear up what happened with the earlier list. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK, Speedy, although I don't see what the criteria could have been... "complete and utter fancruft" or "slam-dunk delete" are not speedy criteria considering that Mega64 exists. And it also shouldn't te4chnically have been speediable on grounds of having been through an AfD, although there there's really no way for the deleting person to have known that. But whatever, not important. I do agree that this is cruft probably and that these other articles should be deleted also, just want stuff to match. Herostratus (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that the deletion by speedy without given a proper speedy CSD reason was a bad call, it should have been processed in the proper manner. It still would have likely been deleted or merged, but we have processes for this reason just in case. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mega 64 episodes. Mega64 is a notable web show, and if the synopses were trimmed down, a list article for all seasons would be certainly reasonable. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But Mega64 already has a list of episode titles (and List of Mega64 episodes is just a redirect to Mega64). Cutting them down... is this worthwhile? I suppose cutting to once sentence to indicate which games are referenced (this would be unref'd original research though). I'm certainly not going to do it without some reliable external refs to work from. I mean, this was a public-access show sold on DVD by mailorder... do future generation need anything like this level of detail? Apparently the Mega64 podcast is something different albeit by the same people... even the refs for the main Mega64 are quite poor both as reliable refs and showing any notability... I would say the bare list of episodes we already have in Mega64 is sufficient. Herostratus (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm thinking a one or two line sentence to give the gist of each episode would be certainly fine. If this can fit in Mega64's article, then that should stay there, but a separate list would be okay if there are size problems. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure how you'd summarize "First this happened, then that happened, then he put on a hat, then the other thing happened, then something else" which is kind of what we're working with here. Just saying "Various hijinks occur" for each episode isn't helpful. The only way I can think of is "In this episode, they made references to Duke Nukem, Trail of Tears, and Let's All Shoot Things", but how could you know that? You'd need a third-party ref (ref'ing to the primary source (the video), if you can even find a copy, is sketchy at best IMO). And who's going to bell the cat? Herostratus (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Plot summaries can be presumed sourced to the primary work w/o citation assuming that the work is notable (read: in the presence of secondary sources that assert the work's notability). And despite the hijinks, there is a thin plotline for each episode, so ignoring the randomness that goes off on that, a sentence or two is sufficient to get the point of the episode across. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So, are you gonna do this? Herostratus (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I deleted the Season 2 list in 2012 for "excessively promotional advertising of obscure DVD series with detailed plot summaries". If someone had asked me back then to delete Seasons 1 and 3 for the same reason, I would have agreed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 9 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 22:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge bits in to List of Mega64 episodes then Delete - Nothing much to say other than merge & delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into episode list page over redirect, using MOS:TV guidelines for episode summaries. Then delete for improper article titling. — Wylie pedia 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 20:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranny (Julian Casablancas + The Voidz album)[edit]

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

Seemingly a promotion for an album that hasn't been released yet, a side project for Casablancas on the musician's own label. There are a couple of very brief announcements online, based on a press release by Casablancas. I don't see any basis for an article yet. Sionk (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage extends far beyond press releases/brief announcements, and includes the following three articles in RSs: [7] [8] [9] Also, meets TenPoundHammer's Law. Jinkinson talk to me 13:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those three sources are dated the same day and quote the same blurb from a press release. The remainder of each article is generally about Voidz, which I suppose may be useful for the (poor) Voidz article. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS, per User:Sionk. May become notable in future, though. GoldenRing (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Album by a clearly notable artist that is released in two weeks time and has already received coverage from SPIN, Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone again, Pitchfork, NME, Billboard, and several others. It will certainly be reviewed by multiple major publications within weeks, so this discussion is really a waste of time. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 9 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 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I mostly agree with what Michig said above. It will be reviewed by major publications and I daresay will be worked on further in the near future. If it is deleted now it will probably just be recreated in a short while by somebody. I believe it has enough notability to stand on its on for the moment, though. Ss 112 14:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Also the album appears to be satisfying WP:NALBUMS. It will be released (and reviewed by music publishings) tomorrow. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really much more to say than what Michig said. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:56, 23 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. At this point there's no consensus to delete and it's pretty much a contested PROD. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piers Gaveston Society[edit]

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

I doubt the notability of this society. Sources weak and/or dead. Content and list of members potentially libelous. Entire lead copied from http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2008/piers-gaveston-society.html Philafrenzy (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current lead isn't entirely identical to Martin Frost's webpage dated 29 September 2008, but the version from January 2008 was, so it seems clear the copying was in the other direction. I agree it needs some cleanup and attention to potential WP:BLP issues, but I can't see deletion is necessary. Reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG include The Telegraph, London Evening Standard, Daily Mail and much of a chapter of a biography of Hugh Grant published by Random House. Also numerous other newspaper articles at least mention it. Qwfp (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 9 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 22:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and removed the table on the grounds that we shouldn't include a list of people that sources say (wrongly) take a lot of drugs and are sexually promiscuous. It could be reinstated just to include the dead (who can't be libelled) Philafrenzy (talk) 09:08, 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 Snow Keep. as per @Ahecht: - consensus outlines an obvious keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epcot International Food & Wine Festival[edit]

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

food festival sourced entirely to the sponsor's website - just short of ADVERT, probably. Not every event at a notable location is notability - as notability is not inherited, lest we have Senior Day at Epcot Center, Armed Services Day at Epcot Center, Gay Day at Epcot Center, or even Senior Skip Day at Epcot Center, the Smith-Jones wedding at Epcot Center, the Suarez' quinceañera at Epcot Center or Goldstein's Bar Mitza at Epcot Center etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article as it currently stands needs work and better sourcing, but there are a ton of independent reliable sources: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], etc. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a major event that spans a long period and earns notable coverage in area and food media. Jllm06 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek, demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled. Ravenswing 18:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:43, 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 and redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald S. Johnson[edit]

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

BLP1E. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Jackson_(police_officer)_(2nd_nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest and merge any useful content. Although he played an important role (he was given the command of policing at Ferguson by Gov. Nixon to reduce the violence), that was a single incident and there are no indications that will be further coverage, so BLP1E applies here. Tom Jackson's is a different situation altogether, which is being discussed in detail at that AFD page. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:BLP1E. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Condition #3 of WP:BLP1E is not met. Johnson played a significant leadership role in Ferguson, which has been widely documented in sources. WP:1E instructs "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The Ferguson events have had an international impact, and it has been publicly discussed by major US political leaders. With hundreds of available sources including coverage in Salon, Christian Science Monitor, Ebony, New York Times, and the Washington Post, the subject fully meets WP:SIGCOV.- MrX 22:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So how do you account for Michael Brown, whose death triggered Ferguson, which was widely documented in sources, and whose life was publicly discussed by major US leaders, not having an article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't account for it. If you want to create the Michael Brown article and can find enough biographical content, then knock yourself out. My only point is that this subject meets WP:N. There is plenty of biographic content to justify an independent article.- Mr X 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Bloke who did his job in a relatively junior post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done In 60 Seconds Award[edit]

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

Unremarkable award referenced by entirely primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With just a simple google search and without spending time going over the results:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2013/mar/26/done-in-60-seconds-blade-runner-video
http://www.heyuguys.com/empire-done-60-seconds-2014-short-film-competition-report/
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2013/03/06/jameson-empire-done-in-60-seconds-uk-finalists-announced/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/weirdnewsvideo/7265123/Done-in-60-seconds-Top-Gun.html

Aside from that, its one of the active rewards from the Empire Rewards. Adding this information to the Empire Awards article page would just clutter it up and removing it all together makes no sense. I fail to see your reasoning of removing an award page from an established award ceremony.

Side note: I don't live in the UK and where i live the local Done in 60 Seconds competition was widely known with amateur film makers. --Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources provided by Gonnym. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I agree that topic notability has been established. Appropriate under WP:SALAT and, suitable under WP:LISTN, this would overburden Empire Awards. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:14, 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. Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FoxWeekly[edit]

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

Non-notable website that tends to re-hash other website's news or create barely credible original news stories. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant third-party coverage. Not even the sources discussing FoxWeekly's latest hoax cover the website itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is there. Their articles are published on Google news and numerous notable radio stations, celebrities and newspapers have picked up on their original content/articles. — Juice656 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Just saw Foxweekly today appear on front page news of MySpace as their news staff covered an original article from FoxWeekly. https://myspace.com/article/2014/09/19/fifth-harmony-will-release-album-in-december 98.249.241.179 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Dot says it's a hoax site that uses copyright violations to give itself a veneer or reliability. Admittedly that's some coverage in a reliable third-party source, but not enough to establish notability, and entirely unrelated to the current article content. I don't think we should become a part of the hoax. Huon (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Dot article is a 'misleading' or 'false' article. FoxWeekly has ALL its articles circulated through Google News. To get into google news, the publication needs to go under review by Google News Employees in which they perform a DEEP background check and review the content and its originality. Only notable news publications with strong original content are able to get their articles into Google news. FoxWeekly does not have ANY copyrighted content from other sites and does not perform any illegal plagiarism as said in the Daily dot article. FoxWeekly has been publishing articles for close to a year now and the original content has been mentioned and linked by numerous notable newspaper and magazines (MySpace, Huff Post, IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot, Epoch Times, International Business Times, HotNewHipHop...etc.), since its launch. Furthermore, The Daily Dot is NOT a reliable source as it has been known to write misleading or false articles for attention. Their article makes no sense... 98.249.241.179 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources discussing it in any depth at all. Presence on Google News is not an indicator of either reliability or notability. There's some pretty obvious conflict of interest going on here. Several accounts and ips working almost exclusively on topics related to this website and its owner. --Daniel (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rantic.com, and emmayouarenext.com are hosted on the same server. They are connected to FoxWeekly, who where the first Website who broke the News about Emmayouarenext.Foxweekly used to be a youtube spammer group named Swenzy (later "SocialVevo") and emmayouarenext.com resembles one of their previous schemes, a website with a countdown to a supposed announcement about the character Brian from Family Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.22.152 (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . No sources that actually discuss Fox Weekly itself. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This is so obviously not a real company. It's a blog disguised as one. The company has no address and the phone number is an out of date Skype number. FoxWeekly and Rantic are run by the same guy. You can see his articles here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.249.241.179 - The guy has also tried and failed to make an article for his fake company "Rantic", voted to keep this one, and is also an aspiring rap artist nobody has ever heard about. It's embarassing that this article is even kept. 216.110.246.24 (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical case of one-man scamming show trying to use wikipedia to generate a genuine-looking smokescreen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierman (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP address of the primary contributor here is actually that of a DNS server. The user (talk) is well-versed in technology, and is trying to hide his or her identity. I believe further investigation should be taken here. As the agency FoxWeekly/Rantic supports censorship of the internet, the user is actually a direct threat to the existence of Wikipedia, and, I am scared to comment on this user with my primary Wikipedia account. I think Wikipedia should get a CheckUser to investigate this account and possibly related dummy accounts which have been in interaction with this account and the same articles, such as Scorpion293 (which has been deleted?), among others. For myself and others concerned with internet censorship, I request that if a corporation is behind these fake users, that Wikipedia make that information public. A DNS-spoofed account should be taken as a serious issue, and investigated thoroughly. — Internetfreedomfighter2002 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've got exactly one source that's actually about FoxWeekly - the DailyDot article - and the only information it provides is that they're a bunch of barely-relevant plagarists with a history of hoaxes. Any article that stuck to actual, verifiable facts would be entirely about how they're not notable in the slightest, so let's just save time and delete this whole thing as non-notable. - makomk (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I strongly suspect that the information in the page is non-factual, and that this page was created as part of a massive hoax campaign. Business Insider reports that the supposed owner of the website (listed in the article) is fictitious. While I would say that the "Social VEVO" organization may be WP:NOTABLE, this article is not, and the reason it is maintained is to perpetrate a hoax. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above comments.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:54, 24 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 Faroe Islands Cup. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Faroe Islands Cup Final[edit]

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

Only editor of this page doesn't want it to be a redirect, despite clear consensus that it should be (see the talk page). So, to make everyone happy and turn this into a win-win situation, and let's just simply delete this once and for all. Not a notable game, the cup final from a country with less than 50,000 people, the winner has never made any impact abroad or received any significant non-local attention. We have a general article on the Faroe Islands Cup, which is more than sufficient. Fram (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the Department of Deletions. It seems there is consensus for converting to a redirest so please just do it. Whether it should be kept, merged, or redirected should be discussed and decided at the talk page (with informed Wikiproject involvement), not here. I see no requirement for a red link (nor does anyone else?). Thincat (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was done. Repeatedly. Other editor can't seem to accept a redirect though... Fram (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the consensus and get the editor blocked for WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per consensus. Apart from the obvious WP:NOTSTATS issues of the article in its current state, comments above that this is one of the more minor national cups is relevant. there is nothing in this article that could not (and should not) be reproduced verbatim in the season's Cup article. Unless substantial sourced prose can be created this is a completely unnecessary fork. Fenix down (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see what purpose a redirect would serve? Giant Snowman 12:31, 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 09:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure why this has been relisted, the discussion at WP:FOOTY had three people desiring a redirect (with one unsupported claim to notability) and this discussion has two additional editors desiring a redirect. No editor has made any sustainable argument against this position. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Only one participant at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 86#Should the 2014 Cup Final have its own article? (User:Fram) was for a straight redirect. User:Koppapa essentially suggested a selective merge, and User:GiantSnowman was for a merge and redirect, but has !voted here for deletion. Additionally, at that discussion, another user (User:Walter Görlitz) appears to suggest that the article should be retained. Consensus for a redirect is not as sharp as stated in the comment directly above.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 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-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cashy[edit]

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

Unable to determine notability. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON Primefac (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Spin reference in particular contains significant coverage. While I couldn't find other pieces that are as definitive, the attention this person has received at notable publications like The Fader [21], Complex [22], and The Source [23][24] is enough in my view to support an article. Gongshow talk 23:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has notability from various reliable news outlets. 98.249.241.179 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Musician has enough notability to have a Wikipedia article. Juice656 (talk) 16:50, 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International[edit]

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

advertising. Most sources on Google are related or social media The Banner talk 11:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a moot discussion, as I only discovered afterwards that this article is a copy and paste recreation (including maintenance templates) that was deleted after a normal AfD and was refused undeletion. So I have tagged it for speedy deletion. The Banner talk 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the speedy deletion request was valid, but user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz preferred to start edit warring to protect the article. But the first version makes loud and clear that is a cut and paste recreation. Nota bene after a refused undeletion request. I think he is confused by Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miss Grand International 2014, a declined submission that would have been a content fork of the present artikel under discussion. The Banner talk 23:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making things up. You posted a speedy-repost request on the article. I declined it, because the original AFD turned on the fact that the pageant hadn't taken place. The current version of the article includes a credible claim that the pageant had been staged in 2013, as well as that it would be staged again this year. That's enough to demonstrate that the speedy-repost request was inappropriate. You're not supposed to restore a declined db-repost unless you dispute that the current and deleted articles aren't substantially identical. Since you don't dispute that, you shouldn't have reinstated the speedy -- and that was the only part of the exchange that approached edit warring. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It seems to be covered in foreign press.[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. That would seem to be multiple third-party sources covering the topic. Voice of Vietnam[2] says it is broadcast in over 100 countries. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas The Banner talk 11:21, 9 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 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - most of these pageants, other than the so called "Big 4" do not have any significant coverage besides the usual Facebook fan pages and pageant websites which do not provide reliable information. GrayFullbuster (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GrayFullbuster: How many of those "most" are broadcast on live television in over half of the planet's countries? That is notable in and of itself. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsprc: The info stated by Voice of Vietnam[2] that says "the Miss Grand International 2013 pageant, is live broadcast in more than 100 countries" is part of the promotional material made up by the pageant owner as reflected in the "About Us" section of the official website of the Miss Grand International [32] . In this case, Voice Vietnam is a questionable source for the claim of "live broadcast to 100 countries" since the information was directly lifted from the official website of Miss Grand International which is an apparent and widely considered promotional in nature. Note that the article was written in the future by Voice Vietnam where the broadcast had not taken place at the time of the publication. Aside from the Lets Viet, the article failed to mention any other broadcasters. As an editor stated before (@Metropolitan90:) in another article, "It would be easier to confirm the pageant's real broadcast situation if the pageant would put their international broadcast schedule on their web site, but they didn't."--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie Campbell: The About page doesn't says anything about 100 countries. It says "100s Of Millions Of Media Impressions" and "Over 1.5 Billion People Have Tuned In". VoV's article was written in the past or present tense, either reflecting on the 2012 performance or the then current one and was published online in English in the midst of the event (pub date is 11^th, event runs 8^th-22^nd); so that point is moot. I think the problems we've here with sourcing are that it is primarily an event of the developing world, for which our search engines do not index those internets well (the difficulties of sourcing stuff for India, Africa etc is a well known problem around here, especially non-English content) and that those of us in "the West" have different expectations of the media landscape because of our corporate cultures. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dsprc numerous reliable sources easily meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting this up front, I have had serious issues with this nominator failing to acknowledge coverage of events in order to achieve deletion. So I have larded this article up with ten international WP:RS sources, just to show you the coverage he, I submit deliberately, ignored in order to make this nomination. I call that bad faith. Because he is doing this en masse, while also actively trying to delete this entire class of article, I accuse him of trying to do this to make a WP:POINT. It did not take too much work, to get beyond the first couple of pages of unreliable sources on this subject, to get to ones that are more reliable. That said, this article needs more work writing relevant prose by someone who knows more about this style of contest. That is not an acceptable cause for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have really no other arguments than personal attacks, don't you? The Banner talk 19:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not see it as a personal attack but rather having an issue with your behavior. There is evidence about rapid-fire AfDing articles (see chart).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD nominations of beauty
contestants by The Banner
Article	Nominator	Status (as of Sept 14)
Anastasia Chernova	The Banner	5 keep 0 delete
Sheillah Molelekwa	The Banner	1 keep 0 delete
Adrienne Murphy	The Banner	Keep
Tsakana Nkandih	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Celeste Marshall	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Winfrida Dominic	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Camila Vezzoso	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Farah Eslaquit	The Banner	3 keep 2 delete
Andrea Radonjić	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Ayako Hara	The Banner	4 keep 1 delete
Zhana Yaneva	The Banner	Keep
Marie-Noëlle Ada	The Banner	0 keep 0 delete
Laura Godoy	The Banner	2 keep 0 delete
Sara Chafak	The Banner	Keep
Lindsay Japal	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Abigail Hyndman	The Banner	Keep
Yéssica Mouton	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete 1 redirect
Laura Beyne	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Marcelina Vahekeni	The Banner	3 keep 1 delete 1 redirect

- - - You are not giving arguments to prove the notability of the pageants and/or contestants. You are just attacking me and my nominations and disrupting AfDs with your list.. The Banner talk 21:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons do you have to delete the article other than you don't like it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt notability and when I did my research I only found very limited Google hits, often just a few hundred and including Wikipedia, social media and related websites. There is no way that it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you prefer to claim, but sincere doubt of notability. The Banner talk 21:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You call what you did research?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call "Assume Good Faith"? The Banner talk 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Banner, you wrote I only found very limited Google hits -- is that the extent of your "research" -- put a term in the browser bar, and counted google hits? Did you do any of the required steps before nominating an article beforehand? What, specifically, are your reasons for nominating this article for deletion? Hmmmmm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that in the original nomination on the top of this page. The Banner talk 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But again you are deflecting the discussion from its central point: notability. Why don't give some evidence of the notability? The Banner talk 07:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, your reasons for proposing this nomination are -- "advertising. Most sources on Google are related or social media" -- that's it? So you're basing your nomination on problems with the current article? That's a mistake. Articles can be improved. Before nominating an article for AfD, you are expected to search for additional sources (see step D). You skipped that step. If you had taken two minutes to do that, numerous sources would have popped out. So I am not criticizing you as a person but criticizing your methods, specifically, for not following Wikipedia's guidelines about nominating articles. Since you do not seem to be listening to others who have told you this repeatedly, administrators should consider banning you from nominating more articles for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again you start with desperate measures and a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why don't you just prove the notability? I have not skipped steps, you just refuse to accept my opinion and convince me that the pageant is notable with reliable sources. Harassing en disruptive editing is not making your case stronger, no matter how hard you shout and roar. Give evidence of notability. The Banner talk 13:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit the article so it is less an "advertizement". There are enough sources (linked above) to establish that the pageant is notable. Wikipedia should have an article on it. If there are issues with the article as it currently reads, we can use the sources that exist to rewrite it. The solution to this one is to rewrite the article, not to delete it. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered over to the Thai language version of the article to retrieve the title text in its native wiki/language, and then plugged that into Google, which spits out a hundred thousand results, such as MSN Thailand covering the swimwear competition etc. Unable to read Thai, nor being privy to the media ecosystem of Thailand, I've no way to definitively vouch for the reliability of many sources, but they do seem to be numerous. There just isn't that much English language coverage, but we've multi-lingual editors that we can reach out to for assistance in this regard (Category:User th or others). -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried the same but got only 5510 results. But I used the option "the exact word or phrase" instead of "all these words" on the search page. The Banner talk 21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title on the Thai Wiki seems to have a typo in it or something. If you use that then Google will suggest the correct spelling, and if Google's suggestion is clicked, it provides the proper results (which I've linked above). One could also simply use the bolded name from the intro of the first paragraph which is the same (that is what I did because I've more faith in our native speakers than some machine; but the machine does verify). Searching with "quotes" is the same as verbatim, you may experiment to verify (the whole process took me like 2 minutes).

With that said, I am in agreement with Blueboar about a rewrite, as the sources turned up in the Thai language search alone seem to indicate broad coverage and notability (who knows for other languages). It may also indicate that there is some validity to Tomwsulcer's claim that The Banner may not have been entirely thorough investigating prior to AfD. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sir, there is no validity in Tomwsulcers strange ideas. A quick translation of the Thai page ([33] showed 6 different sources: two facebook pages, two forums and two related websites. Not a single reliable, independent source. The Banner talk 23:43, 23 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. I am closing this because no more discussion seems to be forthcoming. Given the low participation, this should better be regarded as a PROD-delete than an AfD close. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cheng[edit]

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

Highly promotional BLP, lacks independent sourcing that proves that he is notable and satiesfies WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Notable but promotional.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:37, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 9 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 20:52, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Beckley[edit]

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

Problematic article resembling a resume. Dubious notability. The subject has written some books, has plenty of postnominals, but the article seems to lack serious citations to ascertain the subject's notability per WP:PROF. Ohc ^¡digame! 07:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A lot of credentials, minor awards, and activity, but nothing that looks strong enough for WP:PROF to me. And the citation record isn't good enough for a pass that way, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 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 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' His book Electrical steels for rotating machines published by IEE, is in 768 libraries a/c worldcat. That's enough to prove him an authority in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 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 20:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs cleaning up, but DGG established notability WP:PROF. I am One of Many (talk) 00:49, 24 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. Concensus reflects failure to meet WP:AUTHOR through a lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orvana Ghai[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources presented here are either self-published or are mentions in book catalogues, which only confirm that subject is indeed an author. But these does not establish notability. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On Google, so many picture and information are available about her. Her books were best selling. So I think, she's notable. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google turns up only catalogs, which are barely filled in. Any coverage is tangential related to a book she co-wrote. Fails WP:AUTHOR. BethNaught (talk) 14:50, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 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 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is a typical page for a non-yet-notable author. There are no 3rd party references. There are no 'bestseller' lists to determine the importance/spread of the author. The books are published by a publisher that is very close to being a vanity press - an "indie" press developed by an author. Such a press *could* become a significant vehicle for books, but it is as yet too young (2011), and from the web site it isn't clear if there is any editorial staff. If books are published without editorial work, then this is not a quality press. LaMona (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon, if ever. Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (non-admin closure) --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Shriji[edit]

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

The subject lacks wide coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage found at all is in reference to her father Asaram Bapu's involvement in a sex crime. Often family members of the main accuseds feature in the news pieces, which does not make them notable on their own. This article was previously deleted by AfD, and the present one is a very small improvement over the past. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:PEOPLE as well as it lacks significant coverage in the reliable sources except the rape case. CutestPenguin ^discuss 13:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added few more links related to Bharti Shriji. She is herself a well known spiritualist. lacks of devotees, specifically women devotees from India as well as abroad, follow Bharati Shriji. She is known for her spiritual preaches. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 18:12, 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 10:40, 9 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 20:43, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Senior League (rugby union)[edit]

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

Unresolved notability for 6 years. NO sources listed whatsoever. Google brings up dependent websites and passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:07, 9 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 20:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem is one of neglect, not notability. Also, the names of the various competitions in Ireland keeps changing - I think it's now called the "Senior League Cup", I will try to work on improving the sourcing. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:10, 23 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. Sufficient sources have been found to verify the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 17:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Physical Therapy Day[edit]

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

No indication that this day is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled.
In the case of this article, it's more of the same: WDTV in West Virginia [34], The Daily Star (Bangladesh) [35], the Times of Assam [36], the Manila Bulletin [37], the Hindustan Times [38] ... Ravenswing 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage - they are WP:TRIVIAL mentions. You seem to argue that any event mentioned or featured is notable solely for the mention or feature. That's not WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As I mentioned on your talk page when you raised the same issue, you seem badly confused as to what WP:TRIVIA refers to, which is the use of trivia sections within articles; it has nothing to do with notability. This among your apparent lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE leads to questions as to your grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I urge you to review them.
As far as the citations I found, I believe -- and that belief is founded on a decade of examining sources in a couple thousand deletion discussions -- that they are sources which discuss the subject in the "substantial detail" required by WP:N and the GNG. (I didn't bother posting a few which I felt didn't.) I'm quite comfortable for deciding myself what I am arguing and upon what grounds, thanks. Ravenswing 03:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources found by Ravenswing. Quoting TRIVIA doesn't really make sense. I think the nom is trying to say it's not "significant coverage", but even that isn't really right. The references are full length article dedicated to the subject at hand. Not sure what standard the nom is holding this article to, but it's well above the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Saini[edit]

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

Fails general notability. Individual appears to be a student with a YouTube account and good grades. Words like "pioneer" and "inspiration" are unsourced, from blogs or from foreign language sources; this article is likely autobiographical. Previously speedy deleted twice, including Dr Roman Saini. Blackguard 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

KEEP He is an IAS officer and inspiration to thousands of students like me. He has done lots of selfless service for upliftment of downtrodden. Do not delete this page as it will be a loss for poor aspirants of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram Kumar Patidar (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC) — Ram Kumar Patidar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sock. [reply]
KEEP It is not an autobiographical article. IAS is the highest permanent job under Government of India, so please give him due respect and refrain from calling him 'a student with a YouTube account and good grades. I have created this article going through all the weblinks, his facebook page and he has no role in writing of this article. I have tried to remove all ambiguous content and strictly adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. So, no need to delete this page now. User:Anish.vikas (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC) — Avnish.vikas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sockmaster, and subject of this article. [reply]
Note: this comment was written by account 'Avnish.vikas' but signed as account 'Ram Kumar Patidar', suggesting sockpuppetry. This user's own deleted contributions states that he is actually the subject of this article and pretending to be otherwise, which contradicts the claims above that this is 'not an autobiographical article' and has had 'no role in writing this article', because Avnish.vikas has many contributions to it. Confirmed sockmaster at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avnish.vikas. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Fails general notability. He's just a low level/entry level apparatchik who seeks to self promote himself by the means of his internet. The article is highly autobiographical in nature and only seeks to promote himself and not give neutral information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncletomwood (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously. Far, far too junior to be notable. Maybe in 20-30 years time! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Page will be updated soon with all details. Far too junior, are you serious that 'age' is the criterion now. Page is complying to all rules and regualtions of Wikipedia Kottee (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC) — Kottee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sock. [reply]
No, age isn't the criterion. Notability is. He's a junior officer who has achieved nothing significant and held no significant post. We don't have articles on people just because they're IAS officers. Or officers of any other service anywhere in the world. We have articles on people who have been recognised for achieving something notable or who are at the top of their profession. He meets neither of those criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IAS officer is not a prestigious position sir..!? This article helped me to get guidance regarding Civil Service Examination for my Friend. I know this is not advertising or Self Promoting, but happy to read more about him here. I am a new User Still wanted to support this article Just because it helped me and please Dont delete it. A single film heroine is in wiki and why cant a officer from India cant have!?. á$thi 15:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Asthishi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sock.
Comment. It probably doesn't need to be said, but all three keep voters above are single-purpose accounts which have only edited the article on Dr Saini or articles associated with him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think so the users count but the Reason, he is having many followers in social medias but we got to read more about him here. Thank You! á$thi 15:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Asthishi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sock.
Delete as per nomination as well as ignore shock puppets. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brother how you are saying an IAS officer as Puppet?? You do know how tough an Civil Service Examination? CSE is not based on book or Mug up. But it need knowledge that one have to seek and understand it. á$thi 15:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Asthishi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sock.

Sorry Sir i dint notice Shock Puppet. What is their to nominate sir? It is just a page on autobiography. It is written based on the article mentioned in the reference. If you feel any sentence as such, you can edit it to standard sentence. á$thi 15:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asthishi (talk • contribs) — Asthishi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed Sock.
Delete, regretfully, since he is clearly an inspirational person. Just not notable. I have gone through all the references in the article, which made it very clear to my mind that this is a case of somebody who is up and coming - so there cannot be an article about him yet. The article is also very promotional in tone, but that can be fixed with some rewriting. The lack of notability can't be fixed by editing the article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, generally I agree with bonadea, Saini seems to be up-and-coming and has been noticed by a small number of blogs/entrepreneur websites (which do not seem to be journalistic news sources). Success and talent aren't the same thing as 'notability'. Sources from his employer, IAS, or quotes from him count very little towards proving any importance. Sionk (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In agreement with bonadea, the page definitely needs to be revamped to remove all the promotional content but the references mentioned, specially the Hindi citations are from reliable news publishers with him as the sole subject of those references, so according to me clearly not the case of notability. However content seems promotional and self-advertising which needs to be removed. Cheers Mr RD 20:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG at present.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, and however distinguished he is as such, he is just a student who gave a TEDx talk. —innotata 04:49, 23 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lujan[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for years. I don't see anything in the bibliography or on Google that suggests notability--the requirements in WP:GNG are not met, and I don't think that those in WP:PROF are met either. A PROD was removed, which is fine, but the rationale, "is published author", is not enough for notability per our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Has appeared as an expert commentator, is a published author, psychoanalyst, psycho-sociologist and professor at ESCP-EAP European School of Management. Zambelo; talk 19:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 million books are now published per year. Writing a couple of books and appearing on a TV show is not sufficient for notability. Also, there is no analysis of this person in secondary sources, which used to be a requirement for an article but it seems is garbage now. Abductive (reasoning) 23:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just isn't substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As noted, writing a book and appearing on TV is not the same thing as being covered in depth by such sources. Also fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N on all counts. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dismal citation record (all in the single digits). Does not meet GNG and PROF even less. --Randykitty (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet Notability at WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or anywhere else I can think of. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being published is not only run of the mill, it's what scholars are expected to do at a minimum. Also, he is not listed as a member of the faculty at ESCP, so I can't verify the basic facts in the article. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources provided comes even close to meeting any of our notability guidelines, and my own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Not all "published authors" are notable, and there is no indication that this one is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hui Cambrelen[edit]

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

On notability grounds. Long involved story but essentially a local martial arts instructor. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:07, 17 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research (cited sources include anonymous classmates). If a new, well cited article about this topic can be written, please do so, but this version is an unsalvageable personal essay. Pburka (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No supported claims of notability. The only independent source is IMDB which lists him as appearing in a martial arts documentary. That's not nearly enough to show notability. Plenty of OR but no independent reliable sources. COI is likely.Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 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 keep. The nomination and one other had concerns over independent sourcing establishing notability which have been found and added to a (now) significantly improved article (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Lisney[edit]

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

NN entertainer. No independent sources. And the article made by an SPA. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... not quite a SPA, as the author did edit other articles from January through November of 2007. However, he does not seem to have a hand on WP:PEOPLE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The fellow exists and can be found written of in music-related books,[39][40] and may be the best concert pianist in the world... but I do not see enough outside his own website with which to build an article. Does anyone feel he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO #2? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article just needs some sources: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have worked a bit on the article: wikified, added sources, discography and authority control. I hope that addresses your concerns, Why should I have a User Name?. (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources provided, even if provided by those !voting "delete", seem widely spread and reliable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the discography of his own record company, mentioned on his web site, there is his discography at AllMusic. That and the reviews listed by Lemnaminor are enough to convince me. --Stfg (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found & added, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 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 delete. THere is a fiarly clear consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of scouting troops and service units[edit]

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

Out of scope - WP:NOTDIR. Further, a full directory of all Scouting troops etc would contain about one million entries. jergen (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not a viable subject and therefore not particularly useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could this ever become complete, with global scope? If it did, would anyone be able to maintain it? Aside from notability issues, it is simply impossible to create and maintain a page like this. DiverScout (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm starting to feel fickle, but do ncr am convinces me the article may be able to fulfil at least part of what I'd hoped it might accomplish. From the beginning, while the list is over-represented with North American troops, its scope is very much intended to be international. --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 20:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "Keep" !vote and statement replaced a "Delete" !vote and statement which itself replaced a "Comment" (see this diff showing the delete replacing comment). UnicornTapestry, it's ~~never okay to change your view in an AFD~~ FINE of course for you to change your views and to updtate them, but it might be better to strike out previous comments when you add new ones, rather than deleting, so the discussion record is clear. :) --do ncr am 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not even list Troops or Groups in articles about Scouting or Guiding in regions of countries, such as the States in Australia or the US, or the Regions of the UK. One reason is that the list would still be very large and would be almost impossible to accurately maintain. Also it is well established that very very few Troops or Groups are notable and lists are generally of things that have their own article and are therefore notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 13:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasoning in some of the above !votes doesn't hold water. There is no problem having a list-article that could conceivably include millions of items; it is easy to restrict membership to items that are individually wikipedia-notable or limit by some other criteria. "Being too large" is not a valid reason to oppose. We have List of hotels. We have List of bridges. It's no problem to maintain these. And we have list-articles List of Scouts, List of Eagle Scouts, List of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. There exist some wikipedia articles in Category:Local units of the Boy Scouts of America and in Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America which seem logical candidates to list in an explicit list. See wp:CLT for explanation of how categories, lists, nav-templates are complementary. Sure, the current version of the list-article should be reduced down, and criteria for inclusion should be discussed at the Talk page, but logically it makes sense to have a list-article of the notable Scouting troops. --do ncr am 22:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would change my !vote if it really did only contain troops, units, etc that were notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, but that is a short list and they are often notable for different reasons. Even then, a category might be better. The title would be better named if it was "List of scouting and Guiding Units". Be carefull to not just have a US centred view. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment...doesn't that acknowledge that there is a valid topic, while editing is needed, and maybe refinement of title is needed, but deletion is not needed. "AFD is not for cleanup". About a category being better, please read wp:CLT which is about how categories and list-articles are Complementary. Given the non-US title, i have no problem with warning that the list-article should be sure to avoid having just a US-centric view... this is fine to point out at Talk page of article along with discussion of inclusion criteria. --do ncr am 11:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be better to delete this and start again with a new title. Not a single current entry meets the criteria of having a wikipedia article. I think all the categories need to be removed, except the general Scouting one. I also think it should be restricted to normal Scout units, such as Scout Troops, Cub Packs, Rover Crews, etc or, where these are together in one Scout Group, the Group. In Category:Local units of the Boy Scouts of America, only one entry meets that criteria. In Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America none of the entries meets that criteria. Loosely linked associations are difficult to define and are best left in the categories alone. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I must respectfully disagree about limiting the list to ‘normal Scouts’. It’s undeniable that groups like Frontier Girls, Navigators, Pathfinders, and Trail Life are scouts, simply ones that have split from the main group including some who think their vision is closer to Lord Baden-Powell’s. To deny their scouting heritage is like, say, denying Protestants are Christians. --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 16:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I did not say ‘normal Scouts’, meaning exclusion of smaller maybe non-WOSM Scouts. I said ‘normal Scouts units’. They could be units of Frontier Girls, Navigators, Pathfinders, etc. I want to exclude specialist groups such as District Scout Bands or say Koshare Indian Dancers which seems to be a specialist part of a troop, not the main groups such as troops, packs, etc which young people belong to as their first loyalty in a Scouting organisation of any kind. I want to include normal units that happen to be notable for some reason. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nomination. It is a list of non-notable items.Frmorrison (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for having too broad a set of criteria. As jergen has pointed out, there are a lot of potential entries. And not a single one seems to have an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, after i edit the list-article to link to Mounted Boy Scout Troop 290, for example. --do ncr am 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments about the notability criteria for list-inclusion of items miss the point. Criteria for items should be discussed at Talk page of list. I think Boy Scout Troop 600 (Bellevue, Washington) is notable, and in fact deserves an article. See for example, this Seattle Times article, and http://www.troop600.com/. And Mounted Boy Scout Troop 290 does have an article. As do Koshare Indian Dancers, Long Beach Search and Rescue and Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps. I am now drastically editing the list-article downwards. I think some local units are individually notable, and it is useful and appropriate to have a list of them; i voted "Keep" above. --doncram 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines for local units are at WP:BRANCH. -- Gadget850^talk 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed some of the links to this article, so it may be orphaned. If kept, then the link should go in the {{Scouting}} navbox and I will make it happen. -- Gadget850^talk 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added several other entries, taken from my memory followed by looking at the Category for the relevant country. They are thus complete for existing articles for those countries unless articles have not been categorized correctly. Other country categories need to be searched. The introduction needs to be clarified about the organisations that qualify. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are now items for a good number of countries, and the intro has been clarified. I think the AFD could be closed (with Keep) about now. --do ncr am 21:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evie Rafalko McNulty[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Local elected official who has not been "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles" outside of her town's newspaper. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County recorder isn't on the same level as a state legislator or even county executive. Likewise, simply being a delegate at the Democratic National Convention or being elected to the Democratic National Committee doesn't convey automatic notability. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources discussing her and, as she's already mentioned on her husband's page, her article should be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albiet (talk) Albiet
Nothing here is a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL, and the article relies mainly on primary sources and is thus not sourced extensively enough to get her over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 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 Snow Keep. I'm slightly concenred over some of the recent rash of AFD nominations that @Ravenswing: has brought up. In any sense, this is a clear snow closure (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Watch (TV series)[edit]

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

NN Proposed tv series that apparently never aired, only garnered "newsy" coverage while under development and not WP:GNG in secondary sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if it remains forever stuck in development hell, the substantial media coverage it has already received, as seen in the article's references, makes it pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled.
As far as this one goes, notability is not temporary. Something doesn't have to have ever gotten off the ground to meet the GNG, as this subject plainly does. Ravenswing 18:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futeb00l (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage, and that's what matters. Being released is not an actual criteria in the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jormungand characters[edit]

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

Unsourced fancruft.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the AfD for the IP. Ansh666 18:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOUT. Character lists are normally kept as an expansion of the plot not able to be covered on the main article. Per WP:BEFORE have you looked for sources regarding the characters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Knowledgekid has covered the ground already. The issue of sources is of course an issue that should be seen to be even slightly addressed, but character articles generally have some allowance if it's a concise and reasonably written article (opposed to vehicle/equipment/terms etc). If they were individual articles than the need for notability is more important. There is a long standing consensus with these types of articles. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:36, 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 withdrawn. Article was moved to Draft: space. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of selected countries in EU context[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this page is supposed to be. The title says "selected countries" (with no indication how they're selected) and "EU context", but we already have Member state of the European Union, and about half the countries (such as the US and UAE) aren't in the EU (and many aren't even in Europe). And why is the size of the country represented in bicycles? Seems redundant to the many other lists of countries on Wikipedia. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per move to draft space. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the icons for land area into more conventional ones. The train and bicycle, fast and slow transport were meant to symbolize distances to cover. Also the title was changed. Erik Zachte (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Also The article states "Data and markup maintained via spreadsheet. Please do not edit manually." ... Well if it's on a spreadsheet then what's the actual point of this article? ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The table shows a new way to present spreadsheet using Isotype. The spreadheet isn't needed per se to build such tables, only this one got unwieldy. If you think the selection process for the countries is arbitrary please improve rather than delete.

The basic macro introduced here is explained in a blog post and illustrated here:

Population

GDP

GDP per capita

Erik Zachte (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can we improve it when you've told us not to edit it? Only you have access to the spreadsheet and the macro. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is almost a contradiction. Either I might not maintain the spreadsheet and rows can be deleted manually. Or criteria for which countries to include could be discussed at talk page. Erik Zachte (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The icons for fast and slow traffic to represent large and small areas, are a compromise, and I welcome better alternatives, as I explain in my blog post, small icon size makes many candidates less fit. Erik Zachte (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to build a EU centric table, but in a larger context, hence all metrics as percentage of EU total, all non EU countries, and the largest countries from other regions. This table is most interesting for Europeans I presume. We could do similar tables for other regions. Erik Zachte (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and an WP:INDISCRIMINATE jumble of statistics and facts about EU and non-EU countries. Countries like Argentina and Nigeria are rarely (if ever) compared like this to the EU. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is there original research here? It's merely a better way to present data. And far from original. Been used all over the place outside Wikipedia since 1930's Erik Zachte (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest shrinking the number of non European countries (which was admittely a bit chaotic) as follows: keep top 3 countries in population, land size, and GDP for global perspective. that would 9 at most. (done, only 5 due to overlaps) Erik Zachte (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates accessibility guidelines. Images cannot solely be used to convey information. Article cannot be edit manually by others. Duplicates Member state of the European Union Bgwhite (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on all 3 points: Data are both in numeric and graphical format. Also article can be edited by anyone, I removed the notice. No duplicates as this way of presenting data is new (on Wikipedia). Erik Zachte (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see the whole point of this new table design (new in Wikipedia) is that people glean very little insights from huge tables of large numbers, unless they spend an extraordinary amount of time studying the numbers. Just making the table sortable is not good enough. Erik Zachte (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I added this notice: "Unlike most lists of countries in Wikipedia metrics here are not in absolute values, but as percentages of a large entity, the European Union. If you need raw numbers please consult other lists. Here the primary goal is to help the reader obtain a better sense of proportions." Erik Zachte (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This type of job is not for wikipedia, but for wikiDatabase or whatever it is under development. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WikiData?

I agree this table might be fed from WikiData some time in the future, that would probably be neat. Still I think the end-product belongs on Wikipedia, like so much more structured data (infoboxes). Erik Zachte (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the presentation mode is far from original, here is another example: For many more see Google Images, search isotype

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Zachte (WMF) (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, no need for deletion. I think this idea is kinda cool, though I should begin with a disclaimer and say that I am a big fan of Erik's blog and especially the wikistats he produces for the Foundation. That said, I am surprised at the chorus of deletes here and to see that no effort has been made to steer him in a positive direction, only towards 100% rejection. As far as the article goes, I am in complete agreement that the title was bad (it still hasn't gotten any better), the lead "Data and markup maintained via spreadsheet. Please do not edit manually." that Ahecht objected to (quite correctly) was laughably bad (and this together with the lack of any categories should have been a red flag that Erik was a new user in need of help, not rejection), and the legend could use some work. I am objecting to AfD process here. The template
```
{{under construction}}
```
should have been used, and the appropriate Wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union) should have been informed. I would even have voted keep with the right title (something like Isotope list of Population, Area, and GDP statistics presented as percentage of EU totals). Unfortunately, when I viewed the page on my iPad the whole table was cut off and all the Isotopes were presented as long columns, making readability virtually impossible, so I think the java script used is not ready for mainspace. Jane (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Erik has taken my advice and put the article in his sandbox here. I am not familiar enough with AfD policy to send out the alerts necessary to the various projects. Isn't there some category for these economics-related deletion discussions? I have since viewed the table on my desktop and feel there is a valid need for this presentation method on Wikipedia. I think however, that there should first be a properly sourced table with these stats (which categories etc I don't know!), and then linking from that table, a link to this table with ONLY the country names and isotope columns (leave out all other columns, but point back to the source article from this article). As far as Wikidata goes, I think the datapoints for the first table belong there as "live" properties in the various country items, not on this English-only Wikipedia, where they can easily go out-of-date. Alternatively, try recreating a historical table from some old, out-of-copyright textbook and translating that into Isotope. Otherwise, the problem of validating and choosing proper sources will continuously pop up and all of this work will just get deleted anyway somewhere down the road. Now I can see it I like the Isotope style of presenting the numbers. Jane (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly the user is experimenting with something that is apparently encyclopaedic but not how we currently do things. We should give the user a great deal of rope to because there is a chance (perhaps a small one) that they'll be able to improve our current practice. Moving to draft is better than userification, because it encourages collaboration and external input. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Move to draft This is an interesting idea and one which could be very beneficial to Wikipedia. However, it needs to be fully tested and then reviewed and accepted by the community before it can replace our current processes. I'm in favour of having Erik retain and work on this in either user or draft space (with a slight preference for draft per Stuartyeates comment immediately above), but it doesn't belong in mainspace yet. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Draftify per comments above. An interesting idea, but not ready for Prime Time yet. --Jayron32 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for constructive feedback. I had forgotten about Draft namespace, I agree that is a better place, so I just moved it there. Cheers, Erik Zachte (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Street Baptist Clothing[edit]

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

NN clothing line. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are only providing short announcements about events (e.g. [47], [48]). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Northamerica.Charles (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germantown High School (Mississippi)[edit]

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

No citations, non-notable, created with the purpose of defamation (please check the history, since I removed that part). Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the brief and unpleasant edit history, and the still-minimal state of the article, WP:TNT might be suitable here. An article is certainly possible for this high school, which was founded in 2011 and now has 950 students,[49] and has already won at least one state championship (in band).[50] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:HEY work by Gene93k and Arxiloxos. A verified secondary school with 950 students. The article is nothing like the condition when the nom AfD's this, which by the way was only eight minutes after the article was created.[51] Improvement was in order, not AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, now that constructive content has been added to the article, it probably makes more sense to keep it, and if necessary the offensive content that was in earlier versions could be revdel'd. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a high school per long standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high schools are generally notable.-- danntm ^T _C 02:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's snowing in Mississippi. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By longstanding consensus, high schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable in the same way that towns, rivers, mountains, and interstate highways are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have rewritten the piece, no TNT needed. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Eleas[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and political scientist, with no evidence of reliable source coverage to properly demonstrate that he passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:WRITER — rather, the article just asserts his existence, and sources it to a directory of his articles in a newspaper he worked for and to his own blog (both invalid primary sources) rather than to any media coverage in which he's the subject. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be properly beefed up, but he's not entitled to keep this in its present form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. The article features a lot of fluff and has absolutely no third-party sources establishing notability. . --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of JSTOR and Google scholar returns nothing, so he clearly fails WP:NACADEMICS. There has also been no coverage of him in independent, reliable sources to establish his notability either as a researcher or activist. Tiller54 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I could find only one article by him, and most of his online presence is in social media, which is clearly not a reliable source (and often tips me in the direction of "self-promoter") The content of his WP page seems to have come from a single editor, whose edits are primarily of his page. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Bosc[edit]

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

Autobiography; fails WP:SIGCOV. Also fails WP:BLP in that it is heavily biased toward its subject. Richard Yin (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today I incorrectly applied WP:BLPPROD to the article. If anyone was affected, my apologies. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not enough sources to support the hyperbole. Stunt work does not add enough to acting work to make WP:NACTOR. If he was a top free-runner where is the coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can find many news paper article about nicolas bosc in France, you can find on youtube the videos where nicolas bosc is competing at the red bull art of motion and barclaycard freerun world championship which are the top freerunning competition in the world regrouping the current top 20 at athletes in the world! And also Cirque du soleil only hires top athletes and they went to France to bring him to the US! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.241.205 (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The isp above has only edited the Bosc article and this page. He's probably the creator not signed in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should have been prodded as an unsourced BLP anyway. It has no independent sources, and the previous isp's suggestion of Youtube also fails as an independent reliable source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 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. closing early as nominator has been blocked as a sock and we have a clear consensus of permitted editors Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EcoJet[edit]

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

The "EcoJet" was essentially a publicity stunt by easyJet. There has been no further coverage of anything related to this "project" since then. What is in the article is essentially original research. ProudSaffa (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks more like a request by an airline for someone else to design and build an aircraft and no one has taken it up. Not really notable, even if proper refs could be found. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Merge sourced details to easyJet article to flesh out the short paragraph.there. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- By "Delete/Merge" I meant I'm fine with outright deletion in lieu of merging. - BilCat (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to easyJet, notable (in a sense) in that the company proposed it but nowhere near Wikinotable enough for an article. (Note that merges preclude deletion, requiring redirect). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not a real jet. Spumuq (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to easyJet. Not enough reliable sources to warrant its own article.
Merge/Delete to easyJet, this looks to have been wild postulation to push manufacturers to develop more efficient aircraft - more of a tactic than a sound plan. Kyteto (talk) 15:44, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G12 (copyright violation). --Kinu ^t/_c 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Yellow Dog Music[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers are notable for what the publish, so there's certainly evidence of notability here. And the article creator wasn't notified of the AFD. However, this is a copyvio, therefore speedy delete without prejudice against recreation with free text. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 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 merge to Kerala Vision. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Vision Digital TV[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kerala Vision, not notable by itself. --George100 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that's reliably sourced (if anything) per George100. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unlikely to be a notable topic by itself, but worth noting in the main article. —innotata 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kerala Vision per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 23 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. After being listed for a month there's no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEQU3L[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMG, it lacks significant coverage as well as about all the references from Times of India is either broken or does not exist. CutestPenguin (Talk) 05:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 05:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 05:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Times of India links are fixed now, added some further sources as well to establish required significance.Walentinee (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walentinee - The Times of India links are NOT fixed, you have references which say Times of India but which link to Pune Mirror. Please fix those. Nick (talk) 13:24, 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 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the subject has received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Walentinee (talk) 11:11, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the existence of his tracks are verified all over search engines, they have appeared on major electronic music charts (e.g.Beatport), good coverage on artist is there so it appears to meet WP:MUSIC. Soundconnect (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - none of the references actually support the claims that the subject passes WP:MUSIC. Is VH1 "MyFav Dj of the year" considered a "major music award" (#8)? Regardless, there is no proof of this claim. 1292simon (talk) 11:34, 16 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, — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1292simon - My Fav DJ Awards is India´s first ever accreditation for artists/DJs but I don't use this to establish subject's notibility as all nominations were declared on social media only. However, as far I read, he fullfills at least 2 of the other criteria needed to meet notability for musicians, §1 and §7.Him appearring multiple times in reliable local and national publications, such as Pune Mirror, The Times of India, etc. confirms his notability. Moreover, he is established as one of the highly prominent representatives of electronic music scene in the city (local scene). His tracks landed in high positions on Beatport’s (the world's largest music store for DJs) charts, his single was signed on the internationally renowned record label Armada Music but I'm not using this one as a credit until whole album is released, I guess. Walentinee (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I have reconsidered my vote, and retracted it on the basis of criteria #1 being met. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 13:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironworm[edit]

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

Unremarkable video game without enough coverage in reliable sources. While this is normally not a claim against notability, the fact that the game has had less than a thousand downloads is not exactly a good sign (though it may have to do more with the game being paid, as it's sold for around $4). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:22, 17 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) 16:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS coverage. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, as download/app sites are not independent. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 03:45, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Held[edit]

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

Seems not to have received any significant attention. His roles are minor ones (e.g. on Patriot Games, whch he is "known for", he played a FBI rifleman, on Shocker a rookie, and Charlie and the Doctor doesn't even have an article here. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR by a wide margin. Only two of his roles even have names rather than generic descriptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (1) This stub is a barely disguised cut-and-paste job from IMdB. (2) Other than his work on two episodes of Baywatch, the subject has never had a role of note. As Fram has noted, most of his roles didn't even have names (at least one was a redshirt). Bearian (talk) 17:45, 23 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartTrack[edit]

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

It is obviously written by the John Tory campaign. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Municipal campaign planks do not need articles. - SimonP (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per point 1 under WP:CRYSTAL. Proposed future project this far in the future shouldn't be an article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Campaign plank or not, and WP:CRYSTAL or not, don't forget that if it meets WP:GNG those things are irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accept the article is pro the proposal but couldn't that be solved by someone from the other side adding a criticism section.Regarding it being a proposed plan Wikipedia has articles on Chacoa channel bridge, devolved English parliament and the Transatlantic Tunnel which are also only proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.17.97 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:GNG, regardless of whether the article ends up documenting a failed proposal. CRYSTAL #1 seems to be talking much more about planned things for planned dates, and also states that: A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it doesn't matter really whether he wins or not, it matters if it meets WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG or not. - Epson291 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Allow only if there is political consensus and a vote in favour of the proposal by one or more elected bodies. That is not yet the case and might never be. - TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if every proposal for a transit system, which no doubt gets news coverage locally, were given an article we could rename the site RapidTransitpedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and having articles on every single rapid transit proposal, successful or not, even if they are just lines on a map, yet reported by mainstream media, very much constitute cruft. Therefore, I agree with Carlos Suarez. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:38, 15 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Carlos's reason. Even if this gets voted on and wins, if doesn't need an article until it is under construction.Frmorrison (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It does appear to be written by the Tory campaign but it has gotten significant coverage by the news. At the very least, it should be rewritten to comply with NPOV rules. Aerospeed (Talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a campaign promise that may or may not actually happen. The appropriate time for an article will be if Tory wins, and if this is approved and funded. Not before. Maybe worth a mention at John_Tory#2014_mayoral_campaign. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per wp:crystal and wp:promo. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil has it exactly correct: the time for an article about this will be if and when it actually gets approved and funded and a date for shovel hitting ground is actually announced, not when it's merely a campaign proposal that may or may not ever actually happen. And Carlossuarez has it exactly right too: if we kept an article about every single new rapid transit proposal that any politician ever put forward, in an election campaign or otherwise, we'd probably break the internet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it actually gets off the ground as a real thing. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository of municipal election campaign literature. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jepettos[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. no songs reaching the charts and no notable members. unsigned. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 07:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 07:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets WP:BAND c1 or WP:BASIC. No songs reaching the charts, no notable members and unsigned are irrevelant, since they are inclusive citeria, not exclusive ones. (See WP:BIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. It doesn't say people are not likely to be notable if they doesn't meet any of these standards. Also, denying the antecedent is not valid.) In other words, what the nominator argues is not inline with our guidelines.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - While short, this bit of review from the BBC does not fall into the category of what is considered "trivial". While it is a short review as part of a larger, it does establish a bit of notability to be covered favorably by BBC Radio Ulster. ^[1] - Gig Review: Patrick Gardiner, The Jepettos, Master and Dog (BBC Radio Ulster). In addition they are favorably reviewed by CultureNorthernIreland.org not once, but twice. ^[2] ^[3]. CultureNorthernIreland.org is funded by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and supported by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board as well as the European Union's European Regional Development Fund.Ceronomus (talk) 04:43, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timmins Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Generic, run of the mill chamber of commerce in a small city (pop 41K), with no particularly strong claim of actual notability. As written, this is dancing on the edge of an outright WP:NOTADVERT violation — original author User:Timminschamber, go ahead and guess how surprised I'm not — and the "sourcing" consists almost entirely of ten separate repetitions of the same link to a single "timeline" article in the local newspaper which lists such edge-of-your-seat accomplishments as "chamber protests gas prices", "chamber sponsors tourism seminars" and "first Santa parade". Chambers of commerce exist in virtually every city and do pretty much the same things everywhere, so they can't be extended an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — you've got to make some pretty distinctive claims of significance, and source them well enough to pass WP:GNG, to get a city's local chamber of commerce over the notability bar in an encyclopedia, and those things haven't happened here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't agree more with the nominator. Commercial collectives like this need to meet WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:CORPDEPTH and that requires significant coverage from beyond the group's immediate geographic area. I don't think this meets our inclusion criteria on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like an autobiography, except for a company. (I don't know the company equivalent.) Could be speedied under G11, since the major contributor is from the place in question. I've let the user know that the username does not comply with the username policy, even though they haven't got an edit since 2010. Aerospeed (Talk) 20:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more reliable sourcing than mentions in a small local paper. Also reads like an advertisement, which is probably is, in essence. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:59, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Smith (Football)[edit]

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

non-notable college football player, does not meet WP:NCOLLATH ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG at this time. No prejudice to recreate in the future should he pass notability guidelines.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - if no sources are added by the end of the week, it can be treated as a WP:BLPPROD. If some are added, ping me. Ansh666 18:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not-yet notable American college football player. Fails the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, indepedent, reliable sources). After reviewing 20-odd pages of Google search results, what I found was recruiting websites, fansites, blogs, WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage, and most recently, ROUTINE mentions of his high ankle sprain. Bottom line: this article was created TOO SOON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, Ansh666 is right: biographies of living persons with no in-line sources are subject to deletion per WP:BLP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy GNG. What coverage I find (e.g., here and here and here) relates principally to a routine injury announcement. Based on his touted talent level, he may well garner the news coverage to become notable this year or next, but doesn't appear to be there quite yet. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article has been moved to Josh Smith (football).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:08, 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 redirect to Timeline of Christianity. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church History Timeline[edit]

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

Appears to be a duplicate of History of Christianity. Redirect was reverted by page creator. Stickee (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect... ~~to History of Christianity~~ - as completely unnecessary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...to Timeline of Christianity. Better option - good call Mark. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy redirect as per Stalwart111.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Switching to Redirect to Timeline of Christianity as per Mark Viking's comment (below).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of Christianity. There is in principle nothing wrong with creating a timeline article for Christianity. But we already have a much better developed and better referenced timeline article in the form of Timeline of Christianity. The current article is redundant with it and should be redirected. Church History Timeline, or its title-cased alternative, seems like a plausible search term, so I do think a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:50, 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 merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Of note is that the nominator has also stated that they are "...okay with a merge...) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Kay[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league ballplayer. (I'm okay with a merge, but that got reverted for some reason) Wizardman 00:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It got reverted because I had removed the Prod with an explanation, which is: there are many, many, many similar articles in the Wikipedia and there needs to be a wider discussion about their inclusion or deletion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, it may be time to have a discussion regarding the low standard for what often passes for "significant coverage" per WP:GNG in AfD discussions regarding minor league baseball players. I participate in AfD discussions across multiple sports, and I've got to say, guys, that WP:Baseball typically employs the lowest common denominator among the major sports WikiProjects. "Significant coverage" really was intended to mean more than a random sentence or two in an article about the player's team or an individual game, WP:ROUTINE game coverage, college recruiting sites, MLB draft evaluation sites, and non-mainstream sites that specialize in the coverage of minor league sports. This may not be the ideal example to have that discussion, but it is time for WP:Baseball to have an internal discussion about the standards that our members are applying in AfD discussions, especially in light of the one-game rule of WP:NBASEBALL. WP:Football (i.e. the European soccer guys) routinely delete players such as this even though they may technically satisfy the Association football specific notability guideline. Do we really want several thousand articles about minor league baseball players, many of which no one is ever going to read? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill player who was just drafted in the 27th round this year. Not even notable for a re-direct at this point.--Yankees10 01:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In cases where an article doesn't meet an inclusion guideline like NBASEBALL's "one game in MLB" (which by the way is not universally upheld, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball)) it should come down to the sources. I do agree with Dirtlawyer1 that "significant coverage" means more than a throwaway sentence or two in an article or a scout.com profile. In this case, the referencing in the article is clearly substandard. So do sources exist that aren't cited that if added would bring this up to the level of GNG? There's this article from The Courier-Journal, which helps his case, even though its not in excessive depth. This one, from the same publication, provides more depth than the first. Then there's this from the Poughkeepsie Journal. That's just from the first page of a Google search for "Grant Kay Louisville". There may be enough out there for him to satisfy GNG. At this point, more searching is needed to truly determine that. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run-of-the-mill needs to come into play at some point with a guy like this. A 27th rounder from just this year who won no major awards in college and is still in low-A ball. What exactly separates this guy from hundreds of other minor league players other than the fact he had one more article or two written about him than others?--Yankees10 16:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run-of-the-mill is an important consideration, but I'm not sure this is a run-of-the-mill player. He might be, certainly falling to the 27th round suggests that he may be (usually prospects are taken in the first 15 to 20 rounds, with the best of them in the first few, and beyond that is organizational filler). Whether or not he is "run-of-the-mill" comes down to the sourcing that exists, or does not exist. In just the first page of Google results, I found those three articles, which alone do not establish GNG, but do contribute towards it. Those are not mere game reports, which WP:MILL mentions specifically. As the essay says, "In order for such a commonplace item to be worthy for inclusion in an article, there must be sources provided other than those that would source so many others just like it." In-depth profiles are what it's talking about. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have certainly relied on far less significant coverage in other minor league baseball player AfD discussions. I don't disagree that such coverage contributes to satisfying GNG, and I also don't disagree that the subject is not particularly "notable" in the dictionary sense, if not the Wikipedia sense. How do we rationalize deleting this article, when we have kept other minor league players with less significant coverage? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to respond to this without knowing which articles you're referring to. Maybe some have been kept that shouldn't have been, it's quite possible and in fact likely. BTW here's another article on Kay. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find WP:NBASEBALL to be too restrictive in that AAA minor league teams operate in major cities and they are considered direct Major League prep factories. That said, this individual plays for a "Short-Season A" team, so he even fails my standard for presumed baseball notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players as he seems to have some notability but not enough for his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the Poughkeepsie Journal article, it says "Kay is believed to be the only player to ever hit for the cycle in his first Minor League Baseball game." (surely not a run-of-the-mill occurrence) Until I came to that sentence, I was wondering why stories were being written about a seeming nondescript player. This is something that seems to push him into "barely notable". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. I came into this thinking this is likely an easily merge-able subject, yet needed the overarching discussion I described above. However, what strikes me is the number of mainstream news articles that have focused solely on him (examples in links above and found via Google search). Also, there is the unique feat mentioned in the comment directly above this vote. Also, he seems to have been a critical player on the Louisville team that made it to the College World Series (not enough by itself for notability, but it's a part of the overall picture). I sense only increasing notability on the horizon, but at this point, I judge the subject as at least barely notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and lacks the coverage required by GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Alex (talk) 18:42, 15 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 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To my way of thinking the choice was delete or merge to the minor league players' list, and in light of the handful of sources found by Muboshgu, I have decided to preserve the content in part by merging. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dirtlawyer1. This overrides my previous vote. I am doing this for the sake of consensus and preservation of the content as I think there's a good probability this subject will be clearly notable in due time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:11, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Open[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a WP:NOTABLE tournament Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State Golf Open championships pass WP:GNG....William 20:00, 16 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 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the argument against this. Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Human.v2.0:, what part of WP:NOTABILITY do you think this meets? I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG through Google, and there is no verifiale evidence of it meeting GNG in the article as it stands. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hundreds of potential sources at HighBeam about this long-lasting state championship tournament. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per above, Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 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 delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Strange Mind[edit]

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

non notable film, created by now blocked COI editor Gaijin42 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now there is the possibility of foreign language coverage, but I'm extremely doubtful that there is any. In any case, I did a search for the film title and the director's name, both together and separate, but I couldn't find anything to show notability for the film or even the director. I did see where the director has posted in various places to try to gain publicity, but not anything that would really show notability for the film. What kind of makes me feel that there is no foreign language coverage is that other than some false positives, the only hits I got were primary. Normally there would be some other hits, either in English or another language for the director's name (as it is posted here on Wikipedia). It also doesn't help that there are no reliable sources on the official social media sites either. It may be that there are sources in other languages, but I seriously doubt it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the related AfD for Mladen Reljanović. Apparent WP:SPA-created article that does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 07:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 07:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a University of Maribor student's short film lacking coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:24, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted (G10) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tannekill[edit]

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

Some twitter play-on-words. No reference to this phrase elsewhere. Possibly A11 worthy. Stickee (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ultimately a neologism that someone came up with one day. There's just enough people using it on Twitter to where it may pass WP:A11, but even so it's still pretty non-notable. I would, however, say that it's a pretty obvious attack page against Ryan Tannehill so I'll tag it as WP:G10. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that sports trash talk exists, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to post this sort of thing as it comes across as an attack page- which is not tolerated. I do want to stress that even if this was re-written to be neutral (we can have pages on words that were meant to disparage), it still wouldn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 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. There is an overwhelming consensus to keep all. When I relisted last night, a quick glance showed several IP !votes along with what appeared to be a couple of SPA accounts. My apologies for the relist and a reminder that just because it's relisted it can be closed at any time. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 12:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 1)[edit]

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

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

WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/WP:IINFO article showing by-episode team scores, dance results and notes about contestants appearing on each episode of Dancing with the Stars first season. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") Most information within article falls under WP:ALS, since episode team dances, judges' scores and average/high/low team scores are unsourced.

Within the article:

Scoring chart section is unsourced and contains WP:OR manual calculations of average scores.
Highest and lowest scoring performances and Couples' highest and lowest scoring performances sections contain unsourced scores.
Weekly scores and songs section contains unsourced scores for each individual dance and each separate jusdge.
- Although section does feature six external references, these links lead to TV.com articles, which give a brief, two to three sentence synopsis for the episode, similar to what is seen in TVGuide. These links do not provide WP:RELIABLE references to the listcruft/stats featured in the section and are not WP:SIGCOV of individual episodes of the show.
Only other referenced information in the article is a source for television ratings for the premiere episode and how the show placed in ratings for the 2005 summer season.

This is not a television series with a story arc that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of episode results from this television reality competition do not meet WP:GNG. WP:EPISODE states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Although the parent article about the program has received coverage that meets WP:GNG, each individual season does not receive WP:N coverage for separate episodes.

Ample precedent that WP:UNSOURCED/WP:LISTCRUFT aggregate statistics of individual episode results for game/reality competition shows do not meet WP:GNG/WP:EPISODE are discussed in similar AFDs, such as:

I am also nominating the following related pages because pages detailing season statistics for Dancing with the Stars seasons 2 through 19 are all similar and also fail WP:EPISODE/WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:ALS guidelines discussed above:

Score summary, manual average calculations, highest/lowest scores, and weekly results (scores, dances & songs) sections all unsourced for seasons 1 through 19. In addition:

The season 6 article is completely unreferenced
The season 8 article contains one dead link ref
Some references in season 13 article give details about individual competitors on the program and their performance or injury within the season, but most are related to controversy over injuries or individual cast members. This proves that coverage of the program itself is notable, but does not meet WP:GNG for individual episodes or a season of a reality competiton program. These details are better suited for the parent article or List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors.
Season 14 contains additional unsourced tables of U.S. Nielsen ratings
Bulk of sources for seasons 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are for U.S. Nielsen ratings. Dance/episode results are unsourced.

AldezD (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Discussion[edit]

KEEP - strongest possible keep. One of the more popular series on tv and you want to delete season articles? I didn't create them but I can't tell you how many times I've used these things. To me, even nominating all of them without even a whisper borders on Disruptive Editing. These are pretty darned well laid out. Certainly they could use more and better sourcing, as could 90% of wikipedia. But that isn't a reason to delete these. I can't even count how many articles there are on the Simpsons here at wikipedia...seems like 100. Heck, there are articles on single tv episodes. But you want to delete every season of DWtS? I am very shocked to find this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a game show, so reference to game show related AfDs are irrelevant. Regarding sourcing, TV episodes are reliable, primary sources and it is from these that episode information has been sourced. There is probably some information in the articles that is excessive, but AfD is not for cleanup. Dancing With the Stars is a seasonal TV series so it seems reasonable that individual season articles exist. This is standard practice for TV series that are not game shows so I don't see any reason why any of the listed articles should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the most bad-faith nomination I've seen so far! .. Infact I agree with Fyunck(click) - This is pretty much disruptive editing .... Anyway All the articles above are ~~helpful~~, encyclopedic ~~and warranted~~, I honestly see no reason to delete other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I admit the content is somewhat excessive but we're not a cleanup solution, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator—The television program is notable, and contestants appearing are featured in List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. However, the articles nominated in this AFD all fall under WP:IINFO, WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT, and have major issues with WP:RELY, WP:OR and WP:ALS content. AldezD (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all issues that should be addressed during normal cleanup and that is not what AfD is for. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response—Removing the information that falls under WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/WP:IINFO in each article would leave these articles nearly empty. List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors serves the purpose of detailing finishing places for each season. WP:ALS is secondary to the statement that the data, lists, scores, and fancruft content falls under many areas of WP:NOT. AldezD (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch this series at all, but I have to disagree. Certainly, some of the table content is inappropriate. Instead, it should be converted to prose descriptions, which would not leave the article empty but again, this is cleanup, not an excuse to delete. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I totally agree with everyone! These articles can not be deleted! ~~They are very helpful to many people and fans of the show.~~ Sure there are issues on them (especially in the first seasons articles) but deleting them is not the solution. You could suggest a clean up or something but not deletion. And since the episodes are aired, they can be used as reliable sources for the scores. It's exactly like when everyone in WP removes the sources from episode TV shows' titles and who the director, writer etc is after they air; no further sourcing is needed for that. And like others noted, to just come and nominate all 19 articles for deletion just like that, is disruptive editing. TeamGale 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single-season articles for extremely popular and long-running reality shows is quite an established practice on Wikipedia. There are articles for each season of Survivor, The Bachelor, Big Brother, The Voice, America's Got Talent, and so many others. Let's just accept it and move on. --Gccwang (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—A WP:OTHERSTUFF argument does not address the WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/WP:IINFO issues that are the basis for this AFD. AldezD (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP..I'm from Europe and this articles are super helpful when you can't watch the show live and have to wait for the realese on internet..in meantime you can check the scores and dances..Please keep this articles for the love of god. The worst nomination for deletaion EVER!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.35.248 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — 89.142.35.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP - this could not be deleted. Fevrret (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have no opinion and have better things to worry about than this at this point. I will, however, give a gentle reminder to all editors that statements such as "They are very helpful", "this articles are super helpful" and "Please keep this articles for the love of god" fall under WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. While many "keep" arguments may have merit to them, those three examples are not in that group of arguments. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bentvfan54321: - On my part I will admit "helpful" was the wrong word to use and I apologize for that - I don't usually use words like that but somehow did today... Thanks for spotting the error tho :), –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: No problem, I just want to make sure we use valid arguments in the discussion, as this AFD covers a lot of ground. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also used the word "very helpful" knowing that this can't be a valid argument but I can take it back. It was more a comment on the subject that states something true but I know that "helpful" doesn't mean that something must be kept. Though, I think that I stated my argument about the deletion too in the paragraph...no need to stay in one word :) TeamGale 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the articles may not have adequate source citations in many sections, this does not mean that they do not exist. There are secondary reliable sources out there that typically review or recap episodes of this show on a regular basis; I am sure that enough facets of the data could be sourced to these that a major part of the articles could survive a purge. The rest of the data would need to rely on primary sources—AussieLegend is absolutely right about these being acceptable—and on ordinary mathematical calculations (which are allowed). The picture isn't nearly as grim as painted by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am truly against this request or requests if you will. Dancing with the Stars has had single pages detailing everything for every season for a very long time. I am not just speaking about the US version of the show. I speak for EVERY DWTS page: Strictly Come Dancing, Argentinian version, Australian version, Austrian version, Brazilian version, Estonian version, French version, German version, Greek version, Israeli version, Italian version #1, Italian version #2, Lebanese version, Norwegian version, Polish version, Polish version of Skating with the Stars, Romanian version, Serbian version, Slovak version, South Korean version, Swedish version #1, Thai version, US Skating with the Stars and Vietnamese version. All of these pages contain scores and dances unsourced as you call it. All DWTS season pages have scores that were posted by people whom watched the show live and edited the page for it. When someone received a 20 is because the judges gave them that score which were seen by editors whom edit frequently on the DWTS pages. The scores and dances are proven on TV. When it is performed, it is not needed to leave the source as it was shown they danced that specific dance. I watch the show myself and make sure the scores were given as the judges did. Not only that, the DWTS aren't the only ones not including unnecessary references on season pages or episodes for TV shows. As suggested by Gene93k, those are the examples. This practice has been very normal and never depicted issues in the past. Why? Because it was shown on TV. That proves my argument. As time passes by, sources become unavailable and it's been there for a long time. At that point, there is no point on keeping the source. I unfortunately agree with the IP address when they say this is the worst deletion nomination. Callmemirela (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm thinking an admin should look at this as a good faith but mistaken nomination WP:SNOWBALL and/or speedily keep and close this thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPI don't see any good reason why these pages should be deleted. It's very helpful and has lots of information about every episode. There isn't any other website that gives so much detail on every dance in the show.PurpleLights123 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! I didn't create these pages but i use them often. I don't see any reason to delete these pages, because they seem to be used by a lot of people. There are not a lot of places were you can see each episode, each dance, each score and so on. I even looked and I couldn't find any other website that has this much information about this show. It is useful especially for fans of the show so please do not delete these pages. 66.215.220.167 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)— 66.215.220.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I agree with the nom these articles are crufty FANSERVICE. But there is also cited episode and ratings information in the article, on that grounds alone the article can potentially be salvaged into a less crufty form, as opposed to being wiped away. More importantly, articles like this are common, for both Dancing with the Stars and other reality competition shows, indicating notwithstanding policies such as WP:LISTCRUFT, et al., there is an established pattern and practice of allowing such articles. I prefer not to upset such established practices just because the practice is not in perfect conformity with a policy.-- danntm ^T _C 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are popular and heavily used articles. I admit that I was a frequent contributor to the Season 18 article, updating it during the broadcast of each show, but I was not the only person actively updating as the show went on. It provides a good overview of each season to provide background information for each subsequent season and allow people to compare across seasons. I've certainly looked at older seasons' articles to see how different people did and when they were eliminated. I don't know of anywhere else that documents this show so well. Metheglyn (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've relisted this as to allow someone time to go through and strike out the SPA votes (I can see a handful) and blocked user votes as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the two IPs who have only made a single edit each as possible SPAs. Based on the contribution history of the other editors who have commented here, I don't see any others that could be tagged specifically as SPAs and I only see one blocked user. His vote is unlikely to be counted anyway, as it was a pure vote with no rationale. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the strikethru. We don't remove posts of pre-blocked editors. But I agree it was a pretty worthless !vote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with purplelights123. The page should be kept. Dlambe3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - Dusti isn't wrong but that step isn't necessary for an admin to consider only the legitimate votes that remain. Even with the SPAs, socks and others removed, there are no opinions supportive of deletion. I don't think the community would have objected to Dusti closing it on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - I'm amazed this was relisted. I see so many that get closed with 3 !votes (and sometimes even closed by an admin that states "majority rules") that this seems quite strange and funny by comparison. Even minus any knucklehead !votes. I didn't see any blocked editors and no "known" SPAs. There are a couple first time anon IP's but there is no wiki requirement to automatically label them as "single purpose accounts." They may read a lot but rarely comment. Would I look at them as a lesser !vote...probably. But they don't need to be thrown out just because they are new. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - Why was this relisted ?, There's more legit votes than anything so thus I'm not seeing much point to this being left open any longer?.... (I'm fully aware I've voted above but believe this ought to be closed ). –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - I agree with the rest. Even with the possible SPAs removed, there are no votes agreeing with the deletion. It would be better the admins to take a look and close it, saying what is needed to be done. TeamGale 05:11, 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. After being relisted twice there is no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG as most google hits are related websites or social media; or refer to the individual participants/local versions. The Banner talk 13:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well surprisingly there is evidence after all, Anyway per Northamerica1000 passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

New Straits Times
The Observer
Daily Monitor
Daily News
The Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies
[52] - News search on Google has many articles from reliable sources reporting about winners

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is all you could find? Just because the articles in de Daily Monitor and The Observer are about a local version, not the international pageant. The Banner talk 09:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 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 05:44, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 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 Delete and redirect to Miss Tourism International. Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International country rankings[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and relevance The Banner talk 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a content fork of Miss Tourism International. The Banner talk 13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Tourism International. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belting (beating)[edit]

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

6 years without a single reference. this can be a redirect to corporal punishment, id do it myself without comment, but that may be to bold for some. the external link is not a reliable source. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no, the external link isn't necessarily a reliable source but these should be enough to kick off a re-write:

Scottish Education: Post-devolution which contains a nice section on kids "getting the belt".
Promoting effective enforcement of the prohibition against corporal punishment in South African schools includes a section on the legal precedents for a prohibition on the use of "the belt".
A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights which includes a section on the history of "the belt", in particular, and other corporal punishment with regard to human rights.
A Child's Right to a Healthy Environment which actually includes reference to a New York Times article that described certain southern US states as the "Belt Belt".

"Getting the belt" in the context of corporal punishment has a long and culturally significant history with regard to both formal educational and private discipline in eras-since-passed where corporal punishment was far more socially acceptable. But it has its own history away from other forms of corporal punishment, making redirection or deletion inappropriate. The current version is a mess of unverified original research. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:04, 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 delete. Consensus reflects a neologism that fails to satisy the general notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia OS[edit]

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

Article name is a neologism; it's content is inventive/imaginary. Performed both a Google and a Bing search; the results are extremely disappointing. I can't find a reliable source to even confirm its existence. Google lists the Wikipedia article first; Bing does not even do that. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it should probably redirect to Series 40, as the few hits I get on Nokia OS related to that or Symbian, which is it's own distinct thing. Artw (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It can be a generic term referring to Series 40, Symbian or virtually any OS that once ran on a Nokia phone. It is analogous to redirecting "Microsoft OS" to "Windows" because Microsoft has developed "MS-DOS" too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Series 40. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I can find nothing to say this even exists, Only results I'm getting is generally Symbian OS .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails notability. Yes, there must be an operating system inside Nokia smartphones, so it's reasonable to expect to references to the Nokia OS. But that's like a reference to the Camaro gas cap. The fact a term gets used does not make it notable. It takes multiple reliable independent secondary sources talking about the subject. They have to be doing more than simply asking what is it or just giving the answer (Symbian or Windows Phone). Msnicki (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and others. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahateerther sesh jatri[edit]

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

CSD tag removed twice.

Article is about a non notable book. Author fails WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable. Thomas.W ^talk 15:33, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any reference to it in sources. Stickee (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lakes independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 02:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no explanation of the impact of the book as per WP:BK, making this just a plotline with poor sources. Libby norman (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mazin[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. At first glance I thought he met WP:MUSICBIO #6, as member of two notable bands. Closer inspection showed 'Until the End (band)' do not have an article, it redirects to a member of it who became notable elsewhere. Mazin was a member of only one seemingly notable band (Keepsake (band)) and they have had a large number of membeers over the years. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can find nothing about this person except social media profiles and one blog post. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence Mr. Mazin meets WP:MUSICBIO. Further, there are not sufficient independent reliable sources discussing Mr. Mazin in depth to satisfy WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 02:44, 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. None of the "keep" !votes manages to convince. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hattori Sushi Devil[edit]

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

Article doesnt appear to meet WP:NOTE Amortias (T)(C) 20:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The restaurant serves over 20 varieties of fish, which doesn't seem too common in Sweden. It's a luxurious Japanese restaurant and there are references that discuss the notability of it. Its speedy deletion was also declined due to 'enough implied importance in the given sources'.--Sushi8Eater (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - upscale local restaurant with local reviews. There's no place for this on a global project. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serving 20 types of fish does not make a restaurant notable. Subject is not getting non-local reviews. Wikipedia is global. Fails WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 13:23, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds tasty, but no, as per Jersey above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this restaurant sounds great, it does not satisfy WP:CORP. It lacks significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. This is especially important for a local business, which tend not to be notable.
Keep May as well delete other articles in Category:Restaurants in Stockholm. In comparison, this one's better referenced & seems more notable than the others.--Futeb00l (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NOTE and WP:CS.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:32, 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. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging elsewhere, nor does this seem to be a likely search term justifying a redirect. Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone participation[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is an ad for http://www.telephoneparticipation.com or the books by its founder Harlan J. Brown. The only references are to writings from the 60s that don't cover the "systematic program" being described. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In no way does this reference the books by Mr. Brown, or his commercial program. It only seeks to describe the concept of telephone participation, and the reference from the 60's is as valid today, as it was when written, and is the underlying initial basis for the Telephone Participation concept.

Since there are others using this in business, and a long record of it's success as a method of communication, I felt it warranted a listing (albeit incomplete at this time). Since I had no intention of referencing back to the author's actual work, I started with the initial founding principle, but will be expanding it over the next weeks, to include more references, and more of the concept. Again, without ever referencing the books or programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joae996 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Marshall McLuhan. Neologism that didn't catch on. ~KvnG 23:21, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marshall McLuhan. Neologism about silly idea of putting a business executive "in a trance" by leaving him a series of phone messages. Edison (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two references. One is to the primary source. The other does not explicitly mention this topic. I considered a redirect to Marshall_McLuhan#.22Hot.22_and_.22cool.22_media, but there is not sufficient matching material there. I considered whether the non-primary source, http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/ could support a merge of enough material to justify a redirect, but the material in that source doesn't justify the content here. The playboy source could well be useful in adding material directly to Marshall_McLuhan. Encourage userfication of this article to assist its author in adding content to Marshall_McLuhan, if the author would like that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 24 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. Consensus indicates a non-notable company that fails to satisfy WP:ORG. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RockStar Investment Group[edit]

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

NN company; it doesn't inherit notability from notable investors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable closely-held (i.e. privately owned, not publicly traded) corporation. A quick Google search reveals several dozen trivial to WP:ROUTINE mentions, only a handful of which are mainstream news or business news sources. Fails the specific notability guideline for businesses and other organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, both for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. What usable content there is here should be merged to Jacksonville Sharks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article and search does not show the company to be notable at this time. Stesmo (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, may have arguments against WP:ADV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:49, 24 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 05:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Asian Weekly[edit]

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

No notability , no significant content. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 16 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of sources found at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per reasoning given by Cirt, additional given significant coverage here; furthermore, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals, per part 4, as seen in this book search of reliable sources (books published by reputable publishers) that cite its articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals #4 and #5 are clearly met. To add to RightCowLeftCoast, a HighBeam search I conducted found 39 articles that cited Northwest Asian Weekly as a source and it appears to be an important source in Asian communities. I am One of Many (talk) 03:11, 24 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) 06:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

No indication that this chamber of commerce is notable among the thousands of others. WP is not a business directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa is a large enough city that I can certainly see a possible path to notability for its chamber of commerce — but that would involve writing a substantial article and power-sourcing it over the WP:GNG hump. Chambers of commerce exist in pretty much every city and do pretty much the same things everywhere, so they're certainly not entitled to an automatic presumption of encyclopedic notability just because they exist — nor to keep a five-sentence stub, based on a single primary source, which only offers a completely generic, boilerplate description of what all chambers of commerce do, and contains absolutely nothing even remotely substantive about Ottawa's as a topic in its own right. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source a good article about it, but this version is a definite delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like all such organisations, this subject would need to be pass WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:CORPDEPTH to be considered appropriate for inclusion. It doesn't in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just about every American city or town has a chamber of commerce. Unless secondary sources cover this one in depth it doesn't pass WP's notability standards. BayShrimp (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply lacks any independent sources showing discussing this Chamber of Commerce; thus this article fails WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 03:06, 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. Consensus reflects failure to satisfy WP:ORG and the WP:GNG Philg88 ^♦talk 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

No indication why this chamber of commerce is any different from the thousands of others. Every city has one, this is Santa Monica's. We're not a business directory, and this is not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like all such organisations, this subject would need to be pass WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:CORPDEPTH to be considered appropriate for inclusion. It doesn't in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just about every American city or town has a chamber of commerce. Unless secondary sources cover this one in depth it doesn't pass WP's notability standards. BayShrimp (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without independent sources, the article cannot show how this Chamber of Commerce satisfies WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 03:10, 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. Consensus reflects failure to meet WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG Philg88 ^♦talk 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Pickthall[edit]

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

Actress known for just one kids show and that's it. Nothing wrong with being known for if that is your only acting job but if there is something behind it also (Hey everyone from Sesame Street can have a page if you ask me!) but this seems to be a more obscure case and should just be linked to the show. Wgolf (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ms. Pickthall's one role does not satisfy WP:NACTOR's requirement of multiple significant roles. The article also does not claim she has a cult following or made a unique contribution to any field of entertainment. Furthermore, there are no citations to significant coverage in independent reliable sources of Ms. Pickthall.-- danntm ^T _C 03:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find sufficient sources to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG + NACTOR .–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:58, 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.

^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/acrosstheline/posts/Gig-Review-Patrick-Gardiner-The-Jepettos-Master-and-Dog
^ http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4697/ep-review-start-a-new-people
^ http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4666/music-review-bentley-bar-christmas-spectacular?search=Jepettos&rpg=1

[1] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/acrosstheline/posts/Gig-Review-Patrick-Gardiner-The-Jepettos-Master-and-Dog

[2] ttp://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4697/ep-review-start-a-new-people

[3] ttp://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4666/music-review-bentley-bar-christmas-spectacular?search=Jepettos&rpg=1

[1]

[2]

[3]