Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 September	22 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samori Marksman[edit]

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

I've attempted to improve this entry as much as possible, but it still seems to me the subject fails notabiliy. The only claim or basis for notability I can identify is based on a few obituaries for the subject as program director for a minor New York radio station for a few years. I can find no sources treating him as notable in his own right, only one credible verifiable source noting that the turnout for his funeral was notable. It seems to me quite a stretch to claim notability for the subject himself simply on that basis plus a few eulogies in lesser sources, which appear to be simply personal condolences for a colleague. I don't claim omniscience, I'm more than happy and willing to discuss the question in an attempt to reach consensus. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his role in the US might not be sufficient for notability, but in terms of his role in the Grenada revolution (serving closely with the then nat'l govt) and Guinea could suffice, awarded national honour of Guinea. --Soman (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the nominator in this instance. If I understand you correctly you seem to feel that Marksman does in fact fail notability with respect to his US activities and positions. That leaves, then, the question as to whether or not he would be notable with respect to his support for the Grenadian Revolution and/or his having apparently/possibly received a national honor from the government of Guinea:

As to the first, all we have from the sources available is that he was a supporter of the Grenadian Revolution who was one of three producers of a documentary in support of that revolution. (IMDB, which is considered less than reliable per Wikipedia criteria, lists him as Director, but the cites and sources presented indicate he was the last listed of three producers.)

Critically, we have to the best of my knowledge no source indicating any close, meaningful, or substantial role in the Grenadian Revolution.

As for the national honor apparently/possibly bestowed by Ahmed Sékou Touré's Guinea, we have no information as to what the apparent/possible award was for, no identifiable reliable verifiable sources as to its having been awarded – the only actual sources we appear to have are a handful of eulogies.

In general, we seem to me to have only the laudable things one hears in eulogies, and no other real, meaningful, verifiable sources which might make a claim to notability as per Wikipedia criteria.

A quick Google seems to find nothing other than this entry, a few eulogies, the report of a funeral, and the IMDB listing I referred to above. Are these sufficient to establish even minimal notability as per Wikipedia criteria seems to me to be the question. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 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 12:31, 14 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!*} 23:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom; there's nothing really out there save for obituaries, and we know that obituaries don't in of themselves support notability. Being "honored" by a government doesn't automatically confer notability either, especially when there's no reliable source attesting to the fact. Besides, I freaking hate Keep votes that put forth waffly answers like "could suffice." Sources have to be demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't suffice. Nha Trang 18:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it's fair to say that coverage is limited to a couple of eulogies/obituaries. It's true that sometimes the death of a subject prompts additional coverage but that doesn't devalue the coverage. This (already cited in the article) is a good start and we can add to those already included this book which contains significant coverage of the subject (published by Black Apollo Press) and this book which expands on Goodman's commentary from the aforementioned article. He was extensively cited in sequential 1984 issues the New York Magazine. There are mentions in a large number of publications (see Google books) including this one and this one, the US House of Representatives, and this book too. I think there's more than enough to meet WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just FYI, a quote from the subject doesn't count towards establishing notability; that's explicit in the guidelines. Since a casual mention also doesn't establish notability, it doesn't matter if there are fifty casual mentions: 0+0+0+0+0=0. Nha Trang 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the nominator. I have no idea what's meant above by 'fair' – I'm only interested in what meets or fails to meet notaility per Wikipedia criteria. I’ve gone to the cites offered above, and they’re simply more mostly brief passing references and some nice things being said in eulogies, mostly by colleagues. As I said in presenting the entry for deletion, I’d attempted to improve the entry and to find suitable sources with respect to notability. It was only when I was unable to actually come up with anything – even a single instance – which in any way actually established or at least offered a reasonable basis as to possibly later establishing a claim to notability that I put the entry up for consideration as to deletion.

As for the examples offered above, I won’t plow through them each and every one individually at length as a consideration of time and space (feel free to do so, I’m not being unfairly selective, I assure you), but here are a few, representative of the quality of the entire batch:

The first example offered, from Democracy Now! is literally a eulogy from a colleague.

The second is a quasi-academic history of the radio station and its parent network which refers to Marksman briefly, in passing, as having been its program director at one point in time. Even in that section the subject is not Marksman, but the general evolution of the station and the network – he is not the actual subject.

The third is a book in which Goodman, in passing, expands on her eulogy, with nothing in any way further bearing on or in any way adding to the possibility of notability.

As for New York Magazine, we are told, above, as a claim to notability, that New York Magazine 'extensively cited' Marksman in 'sequential 1984' issues. I've searched New York Magazine, and I've also searched this via Google. All I find are simply listings for the film he was promoting in 1984 as a publicist for the New Jewel Movement Marxist-Leninist People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada, then in power, in which capacity he was apparently the last credited of the three co-producers of the 'documentary' film Grenada: The Future Coming Toward Us. IMDB, in contrast, lists him as director. IMDB is, of course, unreliable per Wikipedia, and I can find absolutely no reviews or notices in any reputable trade or general publication, either print or online. In any case, notability is of course not associative or derivative, and this, despite a claim of its being 'extensively cited' in New York Magazine can by no stretch of the imagination be even suggestive as to actual notability.

The example presented of testimony in the US House of Representatives illustrates the extreme stretch being made here in an attempt to establish notability: The actual quote is very brief, testimony that WBAI serves certain communities, and in that brief section there’s a very brief reminiscence of having attended a memorial service. That’s it. Nothing more. This establishes ‘notability’?

Per Wikipedia criteria?

How?

AtomikWeasel (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lasar's book refers to Marksman on at least 6 different occasions in a range of contexts, not just once and in passing. His memorial was significant enough that among the "thousands" who attended were congressmen, civic and religious leaders and that fact is attested to by the congressman in question. You still haven't explained why eulogies (though I disagree that is what they are) are somehow less valid sources. And to be clear, the sources I put forward were just the few I grabbed from the first page of Google results. Even after all of that, you are still free to disagree. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the nominator. I thank you for your kind permission not to share your judgement.

The requirement is for significant coverage from multiple, reliable, verifiable, independent sources.

Such coverage is nowhere to be found.

Lasar’s book refers to Marksman on ‘at least six occasions in a range of contexts and occasions’, you argue. The book is a 430 page study of ‘Pacifica Radio’s Civil War’, according to the listing in Amazon, in which, as I understand it, you’re arguing that Samori Marksman is established as notable per Wikipedia criteria because, having been a program director at one of five stations in a decades’ long history of the network he’s mentioned, you say, all of half a dozen times at various points. How is this ‘significant coverage’ of Marksman, as opposed to incidental, in passing coverage in the course of a much longer subject? Marksman is not the subject, nor is he the subject of ‘significant coverage’ even within the course of these 430pp. He’s only referred to, at various points, in passing, as the station program director. If, say, a business manager were mentioned the same number of times, in the same varying conexts, in passing, and if ‘thousands’ were claimed to attend a funeral service for her and eulogies presented by friends and colleagues, would that make her notable per Wikipedia criteria?

If you feel that’s the case, then Wikipedia will have to become far, far, far more ‘inclusive’.

The burden as to notability is on those who assert notability, and there’s no basis, per Wikipedia criteria, for saying this person meets the criteria. Not objectively. In the reminiscences of colleague and mourner, perhaps, but those aren't the criteria.

This may have been a swell guy, much loved by his colleagues, a fine fellow, but the eulogies and warm thoughts derivative of that fact don’t make him notable.

For pity’s sake, we’re being told that a public relations film he seems to have promoted makes him notable because its showings were duly listed in New York Magazine?

How sad a claim to notability is that? How far is the stretch as to ‘notability’ supposed to go, exactly?

You appear to argue that since these inadequate claims to notability were found quickly, that surely there must be more, that would actually satisfy notability.

Okay, so you’re a better editor and researcher than I… fine… where are thay, and what are they, other than existing by virtue of conjecture and arm waving?

It seems to me you’re actually arguing for Delete without prejudice.

What am I missing? AtomikWeasel (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On March 23, 1999, the Pacifica community had learned that Samori Marksman had died of a heart attack in his sleep. He was 51 years old. The Cuban government sent its regrets. Upon receiving the news, Janet Jagan, president of Guyana, ordered her cabinet meeting to recess. Nine days later, 3,000 people mourned Marksman's untimely passing at the Cathedral of St. John the Devine. The station produced a three-hour memorial for him.
— Matthew Lasar, Uneasy Listening: Pacifica Radio's Civil War

There's also an official obituary in the New York Times, such things in previous discussions having been considered sufficient for establishing notability in their own right.

The president of a foreign government ordered her cabinet into recess, the government of another sent respects and the New York Times sent a reporter (who writes for them to this day) to cover the funeral in the form of an official obituary. But he's not notable enough by our standards? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the nominator. I hate to break it to you, but in newspaper terms, in particular at the Times, that’s not an obituary, even if you seem to think it is.

An obituary runs either as straight news in some part of the straight news section or in the obituaries section.

In this case we have a neighborhood piece. The subject is an event, of note, just as other neighborhood events or happenings may be of note.

I don’t think, though, that, say, a neighborhood piece in the Times on the funeral for a child crossing Broadway on the Upper West Side would mean much as to a claim to notability per Wikipedia criteria, even if it had hundreds or a few thousand mourners (common) and many had wonderful things to say about the person and how very important they were in so very many ways.

The editorial judgement of the Times, such as it was, was that the man was not in and of himself or his accomplishments notable. If that were the editorial judgement of the Times there would have been an obit in the news section (not ‘neighborhood news’, which includes, say, the opening of a new movie theater or sushi place or a bit of road repair, or, as I mentioned, the death of a child or little old lady crossing the street).

If in your judgement such pieces establish notability, then, as I said, Wikipedia will have to become very, very, very inclusive indeed.

As for the quote you provide from Mr Lasar’s book:

We don’t know if Mr Lasar, by virtue of being a professor and having written a book is by virtue of those facts a reliable source as per Wikipedia. Even if it’s the case that the president of Guyana adjourned a cabinet meeting on learning of Marksman’s death, does that establish notability? That would be arguing for derivative notability in the extreme. If the president had adjourned a cabinet meeting on learning on the death of a friend or colleague would that establish notability?

So you have the fact that the Times didn’t judge the man notable in the sense of giving him an obit, but you want to argue that a neighborhood piece about his funeral establishes notability?

That a source (Lasar) which we have no way to judge as to credibility has written a book in which in passing he mentions that a foreign president adjourned a cabinet meeting on learning of his death establishes a claim as to notability?

You don’t think that’s stretching just a wee, little bit?

We have, still not so much as a single credible, reliable, verifiable, reputable source that did, for example, a simple profile of the man, only arguments as to claims of derivative notability.

I fail to see how that even begins to satisfy notability.

I’m simply attempting to be scrupulous here as to the criteria. They seem to me fairly straightforward.

The examples you give require an enormous reach to attempt to satisfy notability, and they still fall far short – for example characterizing a neighborhood memorial piece (gatherings in the thousands are, if you’re unaware, common at St John the Divine) as an obit – it ain’t.

In any event, the things people say in eulogy or memoriam are to be understood in such light. They aren’t straight-ahead accounts or even profiles, they’re praise of the beloved departed.

Find anything that *actually* satisfies the criteria? I’m open, I truly am. It was only when I couldn’t find anything (and I found the sources you cite) that actually satifsfied notability that I put the article up for deletion.

If it meets the standards, I’m delighted to have it.

It doesn’t. AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not the nominator. Wow. Bravo. That has to be some of the best (but most meaningless) wiki-lawyering I have ever seen.
Awesome.
Use.
Of.
Dot.
Points.
And you can still believe that foreign governments memorialising local radio hosts is "common practice" and "nothing special". I disagree and your badgering isn't making my agreement any more likely. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the nominator. I’m simply attempting, as best I can, to correct your misunderstandings as to what, for instance, is an obituary in the judgement of the New York Times. You seemed to be arguing that a local piece was an obituary, when any journalist would tell you in a heartbeat that it isn’t.

More importantly, I’m attempting to present the facts, as objectively as I can, as best I understand them. If that upsets you for some reason, I apologize.

I’m not under the impression that I’m either infallible or inerrant. If you have contrary facts and/or interpretations that withstand reasonable scrutiny, I’ll be more than happy to accept correction.

The fact is that most of your reasoning is along the lines of associative, derivative, or implied notability.

If you have examples that meet Wikipedia criteria, please present them – so far as I know your finding my style of presentation offensive for some reason isn’t a valid factor as to the arguments with respect to notability or lack thereof.

It simply isn’t my understanding that the criteria are in a way, quite simple, and quite clear – and that they haven’t been met.

It seems to me, therefore, that the entry ought be deleted.

Evidently you differ.

That is of course, your privilege, and I respect it as such.

I don’t see, though, how style matters. Only the arguments and evidence matter, not the style of presentation or reaction to it.

The man fails to satisfy notability on the basis of any information presented.

I’m sincerely sorry if that seems to upset you.

ps: What you're referring to as 'dot points' are properly known as 'bullets' or 'bullet points' by editors and typographers. You may want to consult the relevant entry.

AtomikWeasel (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lucky I'm not an editor or typographer. I suppose the staggering number of AFDs you've participated in might have made you jaded to the sorts of "real world" arguments some of us use around here (rather than lock-jawing onto policy minutiae). Use some common sense. The fact that you think the concept of notability is "quite simple" is telling and explains a good portion of your "arguments". The aim of these discussions is to build a consensus for deletion (or not) which you seem completely averse to doing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the nominator. I'm simply attempting to address very real-world criteria in Wikipedian terms as best I can, however imperfectly. I have no interest in accumulating Wikipedia credits, per se, only in attempting to address the facts and to form and weigh arguments appropriately – tasks at which, I agree, I’m far from perfect.

In real world terms, if that’s what you prefer, there’s no reason to believe the man was notable. He was program director at a local New York City radio station which, while it appears from the Wikipedia entry to have been of some import and note in real world terms in the 1960s and 1970s, now appears to have very nearly no listeners and to be on the verge of bankruptcy according to a number of minor news accounts I came across in the process of researching this. One account I came across noted that the place has so few listeners it doesn’t even register in the ratings, and others indicated that it survives, barely, solely by selling health scams from the likes of Gary Null – does that make him noteworthy in real world terms? The time at which he was program director was not the period when the station appears to have been of some consequence in real world terms, but during the period of its decline into obscurity – does that make him notable in real-world terms, the descent into obscurity?

It also appears, from the information we have, that he was an old-school Marxist and as such propagandist for a few dictatorial governments. Does having been a minor propagandist for a few dictatorial governments make him noteworthy in real world terms? If so, we don’t have much evidence even for that, other than those eulogies from people who appear to have shared his particular political beliefs and said nice things about the man in his memory after his death.

Where, then, do we have ‘real-world’ notability?

We certainly don’t have anything that rises even minimally to notability per Wikipedia criteria hence, I suppose, your argument that he appears, you think, in your judgement, to have had some small ‘real world’ notability because some folks referred to it in eulogies.

If you have other, credible facts and arguments feel free to make them. I’m open to them, I assure you. Thus far, they appear not to exist.

If you want to infer them, that’s up to you – such inference, however, is only that – your personal inference.

I’m not interested in that stretch of evidence and logic, I see no reason for it in either Wikipedian or real world terms.

Sorry. AtomikWeasel (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hell's bells, folks, can we do without the filibusters? Either the guy meets the GNG (multiple reliable sources talking about the subject in "significant detail") or he doesn't. Whether Important People attended his funeral doesn't matter, since notability is not inherited. Whether he was a Marxist or not doesn't matter. You've made your cases over and over again .... can we stop now? Nha Trang 19:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Done. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually an obituary alone in the New York Times is sufficient to establish notability, but there are also plenty of other sources to establish notability. I have added several more sources. One from the Black Star News provides lots of biographical material on him to fill out the details. So, the article looks to be a clear cut WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no obit on Marksman in the Times as I explained above, at length. Coverage of the turnout for a funeral as a neighborhood section item is not an obit. An obit appears in main news or the obit section. The piece in Black Star News does not have Marksman as its subject, he is mentioned tangentially. Thus, he still fails notability per Wikipedia criteris. Sorry. AtomikWeasel (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per review of sources available in article at present... Roberticus talk 13:13, 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 delete. not seeing a policy based argument for inherant notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios Alexatos[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other part of WP:Notability. The Bronze Wolf award has been given to at least 430 people, and it is clear that he has some significance within the scouting movement, but nothing that I can see makes him clearly notable. This has been tagged for notability for over six years; hopefully we can establish it one way or the other now. Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-serving on the World Scout Committee, which is a much rarer accomplishment, is what makes him notable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep-serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree, which is very rare accomplishment. --Egel _Reaction? 08:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 14 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!*} 23:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not seeing it. So let's say the fellow did serve on the World Scout Committee. That's like, what, the Scouting board of directors? Fine. Just being on the Board of Directors of freaking Apple doesn't win you presumptive notability, and that's the largest company in the world by market capitalization. You get notability by having multiple reliable sources discuss you in detail. Where are those sources? Nha Trang 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nha Trang. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 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 delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Stevens (radio host)[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced, when you remove the citations that are by the article's subject themselves. No independent reliable sources. Onel5969 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC. As Onel5969 pointed out, the article has no third-party sources. --bender235 (talk) 22:42, 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 12:33, 14 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!*} 23:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably should've been speedied as an unsourced BLP, but I'll take a regular deletion. Nha Trang 19:08, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Suspense (Girl group)[edit]

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

Only refs are what appears to be a blog. This group was formed to take place in a TV show. No reliable refs, they have not achieved success from their appearance. At the very least this is too early. Fails WP:BAND. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, there is a lot of potential sourcing out there, but I'm not too familiar with what the most reliable teen pop music news sources are. But the article has only been viewed 89 times since creation on 29 August, which is fairly low and suggests much of this coverage is not really substantial.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 14 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!*} 23:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This shouldn't have been relisted once, never mind twice. The ONLY source for this ephemeral bunch is a blog. Period, end of statement. Great, so they were briefly on one of those talent shows before washing out. So are a lot of never-beens and wannabees. Nha Trang 19:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eternal Kiss: 13 Vampire Tales of Blood and Desire[edit]

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

Non-notable pulp fiction collection assembled by non-notable editor, though some story authors might have notability. I can't find independent reviews for the collection in any meaningful source. Mikeblas (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of those instances where the people involved are notable and independently of the book, some of the stories are notable (ie, some of the stories were published prior to the book and received coverage as individual stories or books), but the compilation book itself is not notable, as it hasn't received any true coverage outside of various blog reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 14 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!*} 23:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK. With an Amazon sales rank that doesn't hit the top 250,000 I'm not holding my breath, however much some of the contributors may merit articles. Nha Trang 19:16, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giselle Garcia[edit]

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

One of 5 cast members of an upcoming reality television show about transgendered people (TransAmerica). All of the available sources are about the program, not about this person, although she is mentioned in passing in several of them (although never by full name, only by first name, so we really have no verification that a person named Giselle Garcia is appearing in the show). If someone chooses to write an article about the show, this page title could serve as a redirect, but as it is, there is insufficient notability for her own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No multiple independent reliable sources for a standalone entertainer BLP. WP:TOOSOON is also valid. SmileBlueJay97 talk 14:46, 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 12:37, 14 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!*} 23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The show isn't even noteworthy enough at this point to have an IMDB listing, never mind a Wikipedia article. Nothing for the subject coming up on Google regular search, let alone the news search. Is there a WP:WAYTOOSOON? Nha Trang 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that she meets any notability criteria. Why is she listed as an academic for this AfD? 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no good redirect target. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:49, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey Blues Band[edit]

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

This band never released a major label work, not an album or single, and they never charted. The group is best known for backing a more famous singer for a little while doing live shows, but then he moved on and left the band alone. The band has not been discussed in the media. So this band fails WP:MUSBIO. User:Binksternet at 05:34, September 6, 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails WP:BAND, because they have never released a major label work, not an album or single, and they never charted.(from nom) They are not notable for Wikipedia. EMachine03 (talk) 13:40, 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 12:44, 14 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!*} 23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surprised this wasn't just prodded. A garage band that never did anything except open for a slightly less obscure guy, and only for a while? Fails WP:BAND going away. (Hell, looking at this John Watson chap, from whom their notability purportedly derives, I'm not seeing how he's notable. Nha Trang 19:24, 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. Because of the low participation in the AfD, his might be considered a WP:SOFTDELETE situation, but I'm not going to restore this article unless someone can demonstrate that it's not a hoax. Deor (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Upon[edit]

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

Looked everywhere for references, and it looks like the current ones suffered some link rot... It looks like this doesn't suffice for GNG. Upjav (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found to indicate notability, or even verifiability, and this is very close to WP:TNT territory even if those sources could be found. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 14 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!*} 23:48, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Krishan Jain[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Director of police. Is he notable? I don't think so. scope_creep 11:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously fails BIO, so obvious delete. No sources means no article. Not even a mention, from what I can find. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 11:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it's clearly an over-promotional article, he does appear to have held positions that confer enough notability for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 14 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!*} 23:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry, just does not meet guidelines. If he were “Director” a case could be made. But as “Additional” does not meet standards. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Barrand[edit]

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

This biography fails WP:ENT in that Barrand never had a significant acting role, nor a large fan base. It fails WP:MUSBIO in that the subject was a member of band with one minor charting single, but the band is notable, not the bandmember. Barrand has not been profiled in major media. The article's existing references include trivial mentions and two blogs, so they do not count toward WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Did numerous sweeps of national news, entertainment and music-related news, world newspapers, did not find much, maybe if new sources are added in next few years we can refloat the article? I like the song lyrics to her song StooShe here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:20, 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 12:37, 14 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!*} 23:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DFQ (podcast)[edit]

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

This podcast does not meet WP:GNG. Lacks quality sources, fails search engine test, and the members of the podcast are not notable. Upjav (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be speedily deleted as an A7 as web content with no indication of importance. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 14 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!*} 23:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds some evidence that this passes WP:GNG as it appears not to. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:00, 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 redirect to Proloy. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata[edit]

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

Content already merged into Proloy. This is a single song from a movie with no particular notability of its own. It was nominated earlier for deletion, but the discussion drew no comments. Jayakumar RG (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proloy, preserving the page history for attribution purposes. If, as the nominator implied in his first deletion nomination but not in this one, this has been redirected before but then reverted, protection of the redirect might be in order. PWilkinson (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete this page, wont it exclude even the possibility of a redirect? Jayakumar RG (talk) 13:15, 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 12:46, 14 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!*} 23:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Proloy as per cogent argument by Jayakumar RG, and, if redirected, with protection for redirect as per PWilkinson. Quis separabit? 12:03, 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 redirect to Delaware (band). j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Ødegaard Skaret[edit]

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

From the looks of this, they can easily be redirected to the band's page. As there is nothing else notable about them. Wgolf (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delaware (band). This is a no-brainer given the lack of content. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 14 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!*} 23:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randall K. Bennett[edit]

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

Per the deletion of numerous other LDS church authorities. As with them, this article doesn't have enough sourcing; all we've got is a bio from the church (not independent) and a few fleeting mentions in other sources. Frankly, this is more poorly sourced than other LDS general authority articles that have been deleted. p b p 23:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on the subject of deletion of general authorities whose prominence is considered "temporary" and "questionable at best". No one has put up a convincing argument against Vojen's argument, except to say that it ignores GNG, which he freely admits when citing this argument. Just because there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources doesn't mean an article shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. I am concerned about readers who come here for information about general authorities and fail to find Wikipedia pages on general authorities. Should they be denied the information they seek simply because it lacks independent sourcing? I don't think so. I believe ignoring GNG for a higher purpose of allowing information to stand is a good idea. I also still am convinced that we do articles a great disservice by nominating them for deletion rather than working together to discuss and resolve the issues that exist with them. No one has offered a satisfactory reply to this concern as yet. I also believe there is such a thing as being overzealous or overanxious to delete articles before attempting to make them better. I believe this to be a grave mistake. I will not cease to plead for caution in deletion nominations because of this concern. That being said, I recognize that I may be in the minority in feeling this way. I will abide by the decision of the consensus. But, as always, I would urge all to be courteous in their discourse as they discuss issues relating to the subject of deleting this article. This will likely be my only comment on the issue because I have no desire to get into a debate or to argue with my fellow editors over policy matters. Whatever happens, I take comfort in knowing that I have done what I could to preserve articles such as these. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, how is saying that Vojen/your argument ignores GNG not a convincing argument? GNG is the major guideline that governs AfDs. Lacking of independent sourcing is always an acceptable reason to delete an article; ignoring GNG is generally a bad idea. p b p 13:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. I'm open to changing my opinion if he meets a criterion for inclusion that I'm unaware of, but that has not been demonstrated. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no sources other than church materials (not third-party), blog posts (not reliable), and short announcements of speaking engagements (not notable). And the answer to "Should they be denied the information they seek simply because it lacks independent sourcing?" is emphatically YES. That's the rule for inclusion in Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 26 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. Tone 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy Cafeteria[edit]

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

This restaurant which operated between 1922 and 1939 does not appear to be notable. The only sources are primary, and simply confirm its establishment and eventual demise. I can't find any more information about the restaurant, although a Charles Conterno (possibly the same person as the Normandy's chef/owner) ran a carousel in Central Park from the 1950s through the '70s. Pburka (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 14 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!*} 23:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything I could find seems to be based on this WP article, which itself is based only on primary sources and personal opinion. Never a good sign. Longevity in the face of hardship is not a notability criteria, especially since no secondary source seems to have suggested that is what happened. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, this fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-notable, even run of the mill, restaurant. It could be notable, if there were famous "regulars", menu, or staff, but I don't see that here. The fact that it survived as a business in the first dip of the Great Depression is not at all notable by itself. Literally thousands of businesses and people survived the first part, only to succumb to the second dip, the infamous Recession of 1937–38. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 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. Tone 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Buddy[edit]

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

This application lacks sufficient coverage and fails WP:GNG. Upjav (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here that establishes notability. —Swpb^talk 23:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The refs provided are how-tos, or mentions of a few sentences at most. A search did not turn up significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Shalosky[edit]

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

WP:BLP, sourced exclusively to dead links (only one of which counted as a reliable source even when it was live), of a person whose primary claim of notability is election to a local school board. That doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL. Being the first openly gay person elected to office in a given jurisdiction can in some cases constitute enough notability to keep a Wikipedia article, but that's not a free notability pass either — you still have to properly source that they got past WP:GNG for it, which one profile in The Advocate won't prove even if the link can be retrieved. Delete unless the sourcing can be substantively improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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 03:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Maybe not a mountain but he keeps getting coverage. Adam-yo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam10749 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looked great, until all the links were eitehr broken or passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is different. All the links but one work, and most all the items are primarily about him. Adam10749 — Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In the past two days or so, User:Adam10749 has (quite impressively for a new editor) improved and expanded the article substantially enough to make a fairly good case for the subject meeting WP:GNG - indeed, I would regard notability as undeniably established if the article had one or two further substantial reliable sources from outside Charleston. But there are some non-Charleston sourcing, and at least one of the Charleston publications cited (The Post and Courier) seems to be of regional rather than just local significance. Notability may be somewhat borderline, but personally I think that it is met. PWilkinson (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've used wikis before and the tools for adding a reference were friendly to use. User:Adam10749 — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was inclined to close this as a keep per @PWilkinson: however, I think that relisting this in light of Adam's updates to the article would be better to acertain actual consensus. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'm formally withdrawing this due to the sourcing improvements that have taken place since I first listed it. Thanks, @Adam10749:, nice job. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 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 redirect to Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Kysela[edit]

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

Now being the creator of a software is quite notable, but this is unsourced and can't find any other notability. I think it should either be usefried or merged into Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (as a note there was a link-but something was wrong with it and it is dead and doing odd things) Wgolf (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm seeing a passing mention in a Linux Journal article, but nothing else that would help establish notability. I don't think there's enough content to be worth merging; I wouldn't object to a redirect. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to [[Advanced Linux Sound Architecture]]. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:54, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mascupon[edit]

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

Questioning notability of this article based on the strength of the sources included. They appear to be two pieces written by the company director that look very like press release material and a couple of blogs. Prior disputed speedy. Dolescum (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are very weak. #4 is written by the CEO of the company. #6 is a listing in a directory with only the address as information. #5 is a blog about startups. #1 (oddly) was retrieved 9/23 but has a date of 9/26. It is an economics article, but essentially just reiterates the company and its product. This is essentially a very new company (started this year). Too soon, too soon. LaMona (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Incorrect regarding "started this year". References and article state was founded in 2013 and internet archive checking indicates to me it was up and operational by end of August 2013. Juan.perez.sanchez (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could not able to include non-English sources so I had to rely mostly on English sources. Anothernetuser (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are fine where there's a lack of English language ones, so long as they are reliable and not press releases or written by the CEO. Dolescum (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live and work in Spain and can confirm that this company is well known here, there have even been adverts on national television. I have also found a recent not insignificant Series A investment listed on Crunchbase as well as a number of reliable Spanish newspaper sources with significant domain authority. I have added these in edit dated 26/09/2014 to round out the article. Recommend deletion notice is removed as this is a company with significant traction in Spain. Juan.perez.sanchez (talk) 13:34, 30 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. Tone 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dichotomous cosmology[edit]

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

This is a WP:REDFLAG work that has not received external critique. Essentially WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE being violated here. jps (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can ascertain, this theory has as yet had no published response from within the relevant scientific field - and accordingly cannot meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. If this theory ever becomes mainstream, or at least receives significant published commentary, it may merit an article - but not now. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Delete. I am unable to find any secondary sources on this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources or discussion. Delete, per nom. Begoon ^talk 07:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't turn up any secondary sources. Looks like OR that has received no serious consideration. Delete per nomination. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that it is wrong! User:Yheyma

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of this discussion. We are under no obligation whatsoever to 'prove' anything. Instead, the only issue here is whether the subject matter of the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion - specifically does it meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, as demonstrated through in-depth coverage in third-party published reliable sources. The article provides no such evidence, and without such evidence, the article will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take some time to familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines. There is nothing establishing this subject as notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE/PS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ZERO mention in reliable independent secondary sources' Pure fringe OR and blither.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia notability guidelines ,Verifiability as it lacks third-party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 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 delete. Tone 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Gandino-Saadein[edit]

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

Non-notable failed politician lacking non-trivial support. Support is a couple announcements of his plan to run for office and press releases. Fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a resume, nothing more. Certainly not notable. Dcfc1988 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AB of unremarkable entrepreneur lacks viable sources, fails to establish WP:N. Article merits archival as excellent example of WP:LARD. ZaphodsCatwalk (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate does not make one a notable politician. Lacks the coverage required to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ellis (actor)[edit]

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

Sourced only to the unreliable IMDB, I am unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actor under WP:BASIC. Exists, e.g., a name check at [1], so it's not a hoax. Neither Gary nor Keirnan seem to be a lead role. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some more text and two sources. Edwardx (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources Edwardx are not exactly enough to meet WP:GNG, and there doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 29 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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Montiel[edit]

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

There is no SNG for production designers, and I was unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of Montiel. Coxs' alleged quote is not something I've been able to verify, most of what I'm seeing for that appears to be wikimirrors. There does seem to be a VIAF entry, which might be worth looking at. There are certainly passing mentions such as [2], and [3]'s google snippets include "Cecilia Montiel's production design and Denis Maloney's cinematography make the most of the famous, gaudy settings.", which is short of, but still suggests the possibility of other signficant coverage. Additional sources as always are gratefully welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just want to clarify for the record that the VIAF entry provides an identifier for the person but generally has no other information than the person's name. It merely means that the there is a name identifier entry for the person in one or more of dozens of national library catalogs. I did look her up via VIAF, and it's my guess that she has a Library of Congress entry because someone did a thorough listing of credits on a single film. (That film does not appear in the LC catalog, so it came in through a contributing library, most likely a film archive.) While it can be worthwhile following up on VIAF entries, they aren't in themselves significant sources. (Sorry if you knew all of this, but it may be useful information for others.) LaMona (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 30 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. Tone 17:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated floating cage aquageoponics system[edit]

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

With respect to the possibility that this just fails to be indexed by Google, but I could hardly find any Google hits. 46 in total, including facebook, Wikipedia and Wikinews. The system is developed in 2013, so it has a strong smell of promotion but at present fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 20:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see at least three references from reliable sources in the article, [4], [5], [6], all of them have indepth coverage about the topic. Passes WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Kmzayeem. Foreign language sources are valid and may not readily appear in a Google search. ~KvnG 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that. That is why I put on the disclaimer With respect to the possibility that this just fails to be indexed by Google, (...). Is there an alternative way for searching in texts in non-European letter types? I would love to know that... The Banner talk 16:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Kmzayeem. Google indexing or internet availability of sources is not the only ground of notability. – nafSadh did say 16:10, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Uchida[edit]

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

Unreferenced save for the unreliable IMDB for four years, not mentioned in the articles on the two projects she allegedly dubbed for, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence her notability under WP:BASIC. French article is sourced identically, Japanese has some links to her photos (e.g., [7]) but no signficant coverage. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this article satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Anderson[edit]

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

No claim of notability that would meet WP:ACTOR, was unable to find reliable sources which would evidence notability under WP:BASIC, sourced only to the unreliable IMDB. If this is found not notable, no objections to a redirect to Jill Valentine, where she is mentioned as one of the eight actresses who have played the role. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Didn't find much (two mentions in Variety which I added) plus a mention here although not sure about how RS-y the source is, overall doesn't look like this subject meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAN Dnevne Novine[edit]

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

Barely notable Bosnian tabloid newspaper which ceased to exist some time before 2011. Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no trace of this, and sincerely hope that some local library has kept copies for posterity (and that the library is still in tact). But unfortunately it meets none of the necessary criteria for a WP entry. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 26 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Herbert Williams[edit]

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

Delete: not sufficiently notable, unless being a British imperial provincial commissioner is now classed as sufficient to make a guy notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only was he a provincial commissioner (clearly a notable post, despite the claims of the nominator), but he was also a recipient of the CMG, which we have always considered to satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No policy-based reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to think he's notable, especially given the nominator's record of nominating notable people, to say the least. Most concretely, my impression is that the post of Provincial Commissioner in colonial Kenya was equivalent to a governor's post in most places. However, is a CMG, the lowest grade of the order, much to go by? —innotata 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have generally held that the CBE or higher is enough to confer notability. So yes, the CMG is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable post and notable award. --Bejnar (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CMG satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 12:19, 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Mooring[edit]

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

Delete: not sufficiently notable. Being a British Resident does not make him sufficiently notable, unless Wikipedia intends to open the floodgates to all the functionaries of the British Empire. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being made a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George is no small honour, and not something that every British Resident receives. More library research needs to be done to recover the paper sources that document his career, but that is not a reason for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was knighted for God's sake, and not just once but twice! Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nominator's rationale is not inline with our notability guidelines. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One kindly calls him God, and Sir, so he's obviously notable. —innotata 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KCMG satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 12:26, 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Quarmby[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources showing this actor meets WP:BASIC, and once again, we have a biography of a living person we're leaving sourced to IMDB. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has starred in dozens of TV series, most notably the Hotel Inspector in Fawlty Towers. Meets wp:ent. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be correct to note that our articles describe that role as featured, not starring, and confined to a single episode, Basil the Rat? --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth would be gained by deleting it? By all means ask for different sources, if you must, but it seems ludicrous to go deleting articles of this type just because much of the info. comes from IMDB. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tagged as requesting other sources to no avail. However, given the level of unhappiness here, it's clear this isn't going anywhere, and I am happy to withdraw. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Wyatt Smith[edit]

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

Just not sufficiently notable. Being consul-general is not enough to make him sufficiently notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. It's the significant coverage in reliable sources that makes a person notable, not merely his position. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. he has held no notable positions and the coverage merely confirms the roles he had. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (per discussion) ~~Delete~~ - we require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have coverage in multiple reliable sources and much of it is significant. In addition, I don't believe that paper sources have been adequately exhausted. It does seem that the nom. has specifically targeted for Afd short articles created by User:MJT21 without regard to the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, like an obituary in the NYT. In fact, it satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO in of itself, because getting an article in that book is a significant and well known honour. James500 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

simply being in A & C Black's Who's Who is not a honour. An honour is a designated major awards of title like MBE. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although we do not generally consider an MBE (or indeed OBE) sufficient for notability purposes. CBE, yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the sources given in the article satisfy GNG. For the avoidance of doubt, it is the totality of the coverage which is required to be significant. James500 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? None of the sources are available online and while they are not required to be online, there is absolutely nothing online that doesn't relate to WP articles created by the creator of this articles. I'm happy to WP:AGF but do you have copies of those sources? The creator has started a slew of articles, a significant portion of which don't meet our criteria. It's hard to accept those references represent significant coverage under the circumstances. I'm very much movable here - my query is a genuine one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A & C Black's Who's Who is available online. All public libraries in the UK have a subscription. See http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U243117 . The books come up immediately when you search for his name in GBooks. They are previewable. James500 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mustn't have access to the same things as you (from Australia). Only thing I can think of because I get 1/2 a dozen results and none seem particularly relevant; certainly not the ones in the article. Even that whowaswho link isn't working for me. Not sure what the hell is going on there. Think it best just to bow out of this one. Thanks for taking the time. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just discovered he does have an obit in The Times, generally considered sufficient to prove notability. Together with his WW entry, I think that's enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 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 keep. Tone 17:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Williamson[edit]

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

Delete: just not notable. Being a consul-general is not sufficiently notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Williamson was a key player in The Great Game during the struggle in East Turkestan between Jin Shuren, Hoja-Niyaz and others. He was also involved with setting British policy with regard to Tibet, see for example One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. Some of his later career is covered in his wife's memoir cited in the article. He is not to be confused with the more well-known Chief Superintendent Frederick Williamson of the CID. --Bejnar (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CIE, which we have always considered to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep the CIE is a honour that grants notability rather than his role of consul General. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CIE satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 12:39, 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Francis Moncrieff Kerr-Jarrett[edit]

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

Delete: there is absolutely no reason, so far as I can see, to be class this guy as notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For God's sake, this man had a knighthood. Easily meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Also a prominent businessman in Jamaica. Also served on the Legislative Council of Jamaica, and thus meets WP:POLITICIAN. This nominator appears to have no idea of the guidelines for biographical articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Any of the three reasons provided by Necrothesp would be enough alone. —innotata 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. The nom. could perhaps be forgiven for this series of nominations that failed to take into account Wikipedia guidelines, as he/she is a new editor making their first edit on 30 August 2014; however, there seems to be no basis for selecting for Afd a series almost exclusively of the work-product of one editor. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the first edits of a new editor being a string of AfD nominations is a little odd (most of us edit for a while before getting into procedural things like this) and suggests, given all the articles were created by the same editor, that there's something else going on here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 12:44, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Verrucci[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable sources evidencing the notability of this colorist that would meet WP:BASIC, long-term sourced only to IMDB. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

weak delete I did find one third-party reference reviewing his work (within a larger review of a film). I will add it. But this is a very specialized skill, digital color management for movies, and not one that is likely to get separate attention outside of the context of the dozens of skilled artists that work on a single film. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 26 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Pell Barton[edit]

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

Delete: Being a British Resident is not, in and of itself, sufficient for notability. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For God's sake, this man had a knighthood, and thus easily meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Another appalling nomination from this editor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.41 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KCIE = notable —innotata 03:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the new editor (first edit 30 August 2014) who made this nomination is unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Keep per Necrothesp. --Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KCIE satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 12:49, 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-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery John Mumford Speed[edit]

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

Delete: his brother was notable - his brother was an MP. He's not notable: he was an administrator at Tory Central Office. That does not make him notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recipient of the CBE, which we have always held to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

keep No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't be deceived by the nomination, the article is about him; his brother is only mentioned in one sentence at the end. Meets guidelines per Necrothesp. The nom. may be excused from understanding Wikipedia notability as he/she is a new editor (first edit 30 August 2014). --Bejnar (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CBE satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 13:10, 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. Michig (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rothman[edit]

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

Virtually the same rational as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Cadam - unremarkable person, article written as a borderline promo piece by someone with an obvious COI - Greengears (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CV posing as an article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. as above —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 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 keep. Tone 17:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Stanley John Odell[edit]

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

Delete: surely being president of the National Association of Conservative Associations for 12 months is not sufficient for notability? Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's been knighted for God's sake. Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he had a knighthood, so notable. —innotata 04:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the new editor (first edit 30 August 2014) who made this nomination is unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Keep per Necrothesp. --Bejnar (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Knighthood satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 13:13, 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. Tone 17:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aimée Allen[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Does not appear to have charted in a notable chart. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdboyc (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 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 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:24, 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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spit & Yell[edit]

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

Tagged since 2010, no indication of significance and probably should be linked to this band (that I don't think I've heard of until well today) Wgolf (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This album reached #18 on the Oricon Albums Chart [8], which by itself is not enough to justify an individual article, but it may indicate there are RS out there. Michitaro (talk) 02:47, 14 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 18:54, 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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K.O. (album)[edit]

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

a album that could just be linked to the band-don't see any indication of notability. Wgolf (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This album reached #16 on the Oricon Albums Chart [9], which by itself is not enough to justify an individual article, but it may indicate there are RS out there. Michitaro (talk) 02:46, 14 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 18:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KaiBB[edit]

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

A page that has been looking like it is a advertisement for years. Now maybe this is legit as there are tons of good open source places, so either a userfy or delete. Wgolf (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company of unclear notability; the only independent ref, opensourcecms.com has one sentence on this software, and is not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up additional RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 22:23, 14 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 18:51, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progetto Babele[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Created by WP:SPA and probably by the founder of the publication, judging by creator's username. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Marco Roberto Capelli. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand. Why should it be deleted? 20 issues plus several special issue in 10 years, About 2000 pages. Interviews to writer such as Arturo Perez Reverte, Federico Moccia, Corrado Augias. And many articles and short stories published by authors that now are professionals. All what is written in the page is true and related to info available on the net or in several bibliographies of published books. Moreover, it is a no profit company and beside the online content, the magazine was printed on paper and the books are only sold on paper (no ebooks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.117.178 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the journal is used as a reference in 13 articles in the Italian Wikipedia, so I assume it has some substantial importance. The uses there seem significant--its used for biographies and bibliographies of contemporary writers. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with editor DGG here, SuperEva appears to be a reliable secondary source, and the publication Progetto Babele is accepted in the field. It is also cited in academic journals such as Anàlisi: quaderns de comunicació i cultura. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Roberto Capelli[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA and probably an autobiography, judging by creator's username. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Progetto Babele. Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His page in Italian WP was also deleted, for some reason. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argument for deletion. If you don't know why it was deleted from that wiki, you can't say that that deletion would have been compatible with our policies if it had happened here. That wiki may have policies that are different from ours. James500 (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Italian Wikipedia was originally deleted on 21 November 2006 as a copyright violation of his entry on the Progetto Babele website. It was again deleted on 20 February 2007 at Afd for lack of notability. The third deletion was speedy on 3 April 2007 for being a simple recreation of the non-notable page of 20 February. The fourth deletion was by Afd on 30 March 2013 because even with the additionally added sources, it still failed their notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 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 18:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 29 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. Tone 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portobello_(font)[edit]

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

Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources are sites for selling the font, not RS. Eyadnalsamman (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thinly disguised advertisement for a non-notable font. Fails WP:GNG, for lack of significant {or really any) coverage in independent reliable sources. For an example of notable fonts, see most of the entries at Category:Newspaper and magazine typefaces. --Bejnar (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the 2nd nomination page so apologies If I've messed anything up or missed something out. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Only source is a sale/download site, neither independent nor RS. A search turned up no RS coverage of this font.Dialectric (talk) 00:01, 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. Michig (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaan Khattar[edit]

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

Not inherited issue. When it even says "Half brother" is what they are known for. And only in 1 film. Wgolf (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:17, 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 09:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ENT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Clement Thornton Hallam[edit]

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

Delete: absolutely no claim to notability. Being solicitor to the post office is not sufficiently notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his claim to notability is two-fold, solicitor for the post office, and a knighthood. The use of the word absolutely in the nomination appears to be incorrect, although one might quibble over coverage, as most is not online. His death was important enough for coverage in The Solicitor's Journal, and he did have a couple of high profile cases. Unfortunately I am not near a law library at present. --Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was knighted for God's sake. Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational page on this person who is not living. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep knighted, so notable. —innotata 04:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 06:32, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Alfred Lawrence Billingham[edit]

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

Delete: I completely fail to see any claim to notability here. Relatively minor rank, no notable achievements, and no notable appointments. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep but there are reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.41 (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 (and has always been held to at AfD). Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly the new editor (first edit 30 August 2014) who made this nomination is unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Keep per Necrothesp. --Bejnar (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CBE satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 13:17, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Howe (officer)[edit]

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

Delete: low ranking officer, and whilst he received a medal and sat on an escape committee in Colditz, those are not sufficient for notability. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No policy-based reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any real notability here. A junior officer with a third-level decoration. Being at Colditz is not sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. There seems to be a number of these Bedford Modern School alumni, so far only one of the current nominations has been notable. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually almost all of the Bedford Modern School alumni articles have been found to have notable subjects, with only two or three exceptions, like this one. --Bejnar (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Howe was a member of the Laufen Six at Colditz; their story is remarkable and notable MJT21 (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oflag IV-C#Time line until such time as the Laufen Six article is written. Not notable enough for a standalone article, per above. --Bejnar (talk) 20:35, 29 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} Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Henry Scott Galletly[edit]

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

Delete: neither being a brigadier nor being awarded the military cross is sufficient to be regarded as notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a brigadier, recipient of the Military Cross and participant in several WWII campaigns, doesn't he meet WP:SOLDIER? Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a brigadier with a DSO seems to meet WP:SOLDIER, I admit that the article needs expansion to include, inter alia, the reason for the DSO. --Bejnar (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a brigadier, clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brigadiers are notable. James500 (talk) 07:54, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Herbert Roff Newton[edit]

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

Delete: there is absolutely no reason to regard this guy as notable. Relatively minor commissioned officer with no other notable achievement. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any especial notability here. A mid-ranking officer with an OBE. Being a deputy lieutenant doesn't really hack it. Doesn't even have a Who Was Who entry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable so far as I can see. Doesn't meet SOLDIER or the GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as per WP:GNG guidelines. Taram (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he got an OBE. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have generally held that OBEs, which are far more common than CBEs, are not sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction is that an entry in Kelly's Handbook to the landed, titled and official classes (which I'll admit I don't know much about) suggests that we should look to fit him in somewhere, perhaps by merging into a list. Unless someone can show there is something wrong with the handbook as a source. James500 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply a list of anyone with a title or considered landed gentry or related to same. Doesn't prove notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the source for the date of death? It can't be the handbook, because that is 11 years to early. James500 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His death was announced in The Times. No obit though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 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 keep. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier Harold Evelyn William Bell Kingsley[edit]

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

Delete: neither being a brigadier nor being an ADC to the crown is sufficient for notability. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the nominator has only been an editor since 30 August 2014, and from this and other nominations for Afd, seems to lack a sufficient understanding of the notability guidelines. I also note that all, or almost all, of the nominator's edits relate to deletion requests. --Bejnar (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a brigadier with a DSO seems to meet WP:SOLDIER, I admit that the article needs both renaming to remove the rank, and expansion to include, interalia, the reason for the DSO. --Bejnar (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No policy-based reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)--114.81.255.37 (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a brigadier, clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. As a recipient of the CIE, clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy basis for deletion, and per above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move as suggested. Being aide de camp to the head of state of the empire on which the sun never set, is a big deal. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cecil Prescott[edit]

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

Delete: absolutely no reason to regard this guy as notable. Relatively low ranking commissioned officer, with no other claim to notability. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a holder of both the CMG and CIE, clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Also head of the police in Iraq, which obviously makes him notable. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. --

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. I suspect the nominator hasn't read WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER before nomination.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic and educational page on this person who is no longer alive. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure the CMG and CIE are prestigious enough to automatically confer notability. However, the article establishes that he was Inspector of Police in Iraq—in charge of the police forces of a large independent country—which I would think would be an important enough post to establish his notability, even if the present stub doesn't get into the details. —innotata 04:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have always held that the CBE or higher is sufficient for notability. Having two such awards is even greater confirmation of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there any past discussions, or any explanations anyone's made of why that's so? Bristolbottom has nominated a lot of people who are pretty borderline, unless honors such as CMG/CIE are enough by themselves. —innotata 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would it be puzzling? Not that many awards at this level are given out. If one is considered notable enough to receive one by the British Government then is it really too much of a stretch to grant them notability on the minor celebrity and pop culture fest that is Wikipedia? These are people who have been acknowledged for genuinely doing something, not just being alive, looking good and being swooned over by airheads, as with so many of our article subjects! All these people also have entries in Who Was Who, incidentally, and for good reason. Yes, this has been established in a number of AfDs in the past, but to my mind it is simple common sense that these awards constitute a significant honour as per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, who is correct in saying that CIE and CMG satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the new editor (first edit 30 August 2014) who made this nomination, and twenty others, is unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Keep per Necrothesp and innotata. --Bejnar (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was in Who's Who and got the Order of St Michael and St George. While not automatically notable, all the facts and sources lean towards notability. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This guy seems pretty notable IMO just reading about him. Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 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. Not going to have any other result, and Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Cecil Potter[edit]

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

No reason why this guy should be regarded as notable: commanding a brigade not enough in and of itself for notability. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the nominator has only been an editor since 30 August 2014, and from this and other nominations for Afd, seems to lack a sufficient understanding of the notability guidelines. I also note that all, or almost all, of the nominator's edits relate to deletion requests. --Bejnar (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All these nominated pages were created by User:MJT21, which indicates a possible WP:COI.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potter was a Brigadier-General, and was awarded both the CMG and the DSO. Seems to meet WP:SOLDIER. --Bejnar (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A general, which clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. Recipient of the CB and CMG, which clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. --

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a general officer is no small thing, and project consensus is that the rank confers notability; while each individually might not be enough, the CB, DSO, and CMG together with his rank should establish his notability. —innotata 04:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Innotata and Necrothesp. See my comment above regarding the nomination. --Bejnar (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bejnar (who appears to have !voted twice). Unless consensus changes, we keep war heroes and generals. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Ah, you're right, I have stricken the second. (Although Afd is not a voting and tallying process.) --Bejnar (talk) 16:21, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aliceffekt[edit]

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

Delete The article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Therefore it should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popnrock (talk • contribs)

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}}.

Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG. 101.61.177.148 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Emilysantoss (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Unreliable Content, which is not up to the mark of Wikipedia criteria, so it should be deleted. (talk)

Comment This AfD was never listed in the AfD log, so I will add it to today's log even though the discussion was created more than 10 days ago. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the fact that the article already includes a review in CNET and a fairly long interview in Indiegames.com (as well as some more trivial coverage), it is very easy to find more coverage - more reviews in CNET and Jayisgames, and other interviews, too. I suspect the nominator was not aware of WP:BEFORE. The article is not at all promotionally written, but it could do with some more sources. I'll try to add some as soon as possible. --bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : Being mentioned on CNET doesn't mean it should have automatically it's encyclopedic page. Author of this entry is obviously doing unambiguous advertising to an uncertain notability. Emilysantoss (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, being mentioned in a reliable source does not automatically confer notability, but the core of notability is significant coverage in several reliable sources, as discussed above. --bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is good but not substantial enough to create notability108.92.216.138 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources added. It is cause for some concern that all the people who have !voted "delete" are very inexperienced (in terms of their number of edits), and in a couple of cases known to be paid editors. The AfD process is, of course, open for all editors to participate, but I'm getting the feeling that there is canvassing going on somewhere, for some purpose I can't quite understand. In any case there is an embarrassment of sources out there, so WP:GNG is clearly met. --bonadea contributions talk 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the flighty attitudes of editors overall about WHAT exactly creates notability, I'm not surprised about this debate. Better articles have been put into AFD for less...Chastized (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete While I agree with Bonadea's assessment of the curious case of the potential canvassing on this thread, I am still inclined to agree with the majority; there are a lot of sources (even on the page as it stands), but most of them simply verify that Aliceffekt worked on one project or another. Others are interviews (which border on being primary sources), and a (very) small minority deal with Aliceffekt in detail as a person. IF the article can be improved with new secondary sources and substantially more body added I am happy to change my opinion, but as it currently stands I do not think Aliceffekt meets Wiki's notability criteria. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Key[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a non-notable character in a video game. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me and a lot of other people completely disagree with the nominated deletion. Besides, how is Mr. Key non-notable? The fact that he is getting highly popular fan-made spinoff levels should definitely prove otherwise Woutery (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)— Woutery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree. Just because YOU don't recognise who Mr. Key is doesn't make him "non-notable". (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovuto (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)— Jovuto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

True but a lack of any reliable sources means that notability has not been established.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 23:24, 24 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) 13:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What makes Mr. Key non-notable is that it hasn’t received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's pretty much Wikipedia's standard of notability. —teb728 t c 07:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't a single reference in the article; a quick search reveals there is no coverage in reliable, independent sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to any real notability, no reference. The only people who oppose deletion in this debate appear to be single purpose accounts. JIP | Talk 07:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both WP:N and WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:17, 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Baynes Huddleston[edit]

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

Delete: there are are no reasons why this man should be regarded as notable, so far as I can see. Relatively low commissioned rank, and relatively minor role. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the nominator has only been an editor since 30 August 2014, and from this and other nominations for Afd, seems to lack a sufficient understanding of notability guidelines. I also note that all, or almost all, of the nominator's edits relate to deletion requests. --Bejnar (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CMG, which clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Getting a bit fed up with this editor's scattergun nomination of people who clearly meet our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the clearest case, but seems notable. He was awarded a number of fairly noteworthy honours, and had fairly noteworthy roles, perhaps enough to establish notability in aggregate. Mostly, though my opinion is based on the honours he received for his role in the Mesopotamian Campaign: there's enough to establish he had a major role in a military campaign, and there should be substantial coverage of him for this. Note: his nephew's bio, one of the sources, says he was knighted, which certainly establish his notability. Anyone want to confirm it? —innotata 04:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not knighted according to Who Was Who. Trevor Huddleston's father, also an RIN officer, was knighted, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG - there appear to be good sources, although how significant, I'm not sure. As aide de camp to a viceroy, he might pass. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, who is correct in saying that the CMG satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 09:06, 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. Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Naisbitt King[edit]

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

Delete: this person is completely unnotable. He was not an academic, simply an administrator of the college. Prior to working at the college he worked with the police. There are no grounds that I can see why he should be regarded as notable. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any real notability here. Just a college bursar with an MBE. No entry in Who Was Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC. An MBE is not enough by itself to establish notability, and none of the current references are independent of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most college administrators fail WP:PROF, as this one does. If he had been rector, dean of a law school, or chancellor, he might pass. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable college administrator. Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional references added. He was a Senior Proctor of the University of Cambridge, currently ranked the fourth best university in the world. He was awarded an MBE for charitable service to the police force MJT21 (talk) 18:59, 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) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Erakat[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. The only sources are to his Facebook and Youtube pages. There were some articles that mention his Mortal Combat video that I was able to find (such as [10]), but no substantial coverave of Yousef himself that would indicate notability. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in the following sources: [11] [12] [13] [14] Jinkinson talk to me 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing supplied by User:Jinkinson, this appears to be a clear cut case with in-depth coverage from around the globe ...Roberticus talk 14:14, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma J[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who doesn't meet WP:GNG; article has a single secondary source, plus a bunch of primary references to television program competition episodes (she didn't win). The single instance of charting, not even on her own song, is not prima facie evidence of notability (WP:MUSICBIO standard only says "may be notable", and this is one case where it clearly isn't). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, I don't think she meets notability standards. Bali88 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I take the view that, having charted as featured artist of a charting hit and now being a member of a group, WP:MUSICBIO#C6 applies.--Laun chba ller 07:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Launchballer is the creator of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject has contributed to a single charting song and made brief reality TV appearances. As pointed out by BlueMoonset, the article provides only one reliable secondary source. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, in my opinion. 97198 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability, It seems notability is so hard to find everyone's resorted to citing other wikipedia articles instead .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the DYK discussion of this article and that was brought up at that time. Apparently they aren't attempting to cite the wikipedia articles themselves, they are citing the shows (which I believe is allowed), they are just including the wikilink the same way you'd link something in the article body. Occasionally I see people do this--they include a wikilink in the citations. (It annoys me. If you want to wikilink something, do it in the body of the article. Don't make it look like it's an online source when it's not.) Anyhoo, I just thought I'd clarify in case an editor read this and voted to delete on the basis of that. They aren't citing wikipedia. They are citing the show. Bali88 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense to be honest, Meh I disagree with citing wiki articles but ah well. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting as cocked everything up, See [15] for the reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:34, 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. Deor (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DeLuca (racing driver)[edit]

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

Non-notable 9/11 victim; violates ~~BLP1E~~WP:ONEEVENT; delete or turn into redirect to Flight 93 article Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - On the one hand, non-notable as such. On the other hand, deserves to be found in list. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete because a redirect from a parenthetical DAB page is pretty useless- who is ever going to land there to be redirected? -belated sign -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award issued in the United States. All recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor are considered notable and in most cases those people are just famous for one thing. So BLP1E shouldn't apply here either....William 16:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability isn't there, as a BLP1E. The Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to each of the sites where people died in the 9/11 attacks: one medal to the Flight 93 crash site, one to the Pentagon, and one to the World Trade Center. That doesn't mean we should create nearly 3,000 articles for each of the people who died there; Wikipedia is not a memorial. While I don't have a strong objection to a redirect, I don't think it's very helpful either. --Larry (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Red Pen. Redirecting is indeed useless. WP:ONEEVENT applies, not WP:BLP1E. He also doesn't qualify as a "racing driver". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Strong Keep if the first option is not agreeable by consensus. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event , BLP1E is not applicable in the case of DeLuca. He meets the second qualification of being low profile; however, he does not meet the first qualification in that he is not living.. It would be helpful to know more about his racing career and more importantly his artistry for the SCCA. Unless somebody steps up with that information, DeLuca remains non-the-less, more notable than anybody posting thoughts here as evidenced by his receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal whether it was received posthumously as part of a group or not and is deserving of resepct. As such, it would be most useful for quick research purposes for the United Flight 93 page to list, perhaps in chart form, all the passengers and crew on the flight that crashed in ÷Shanksville, PA.....including the name of Joseph DeLuca in order to balance the site with the heavy discussion about the hijackers Taram (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ONEEVENT vs. WP:BLP1E. Being "more notable than wikipedians" is utterly irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply as he is dead. I never wrote "more notable than wikipedians." Let's stick with what is written, please.Taram (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point about WP:ONEEVENT. That leads to the question, is he significant for NNJR-SSCA to keep his memory alive because of his involvement in racing and in their racing publication or because of the crash, the one event. It would be nice for Mottengott (talk) to chime in as to why he started the article. Taram (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joseph DeLuca meets notability as per WP:Artist. He created the cartoon character "Raymond the Cat," his cartoons of Raymond appeared in New Jersey region racing mags as well as San Francisco Regions' WHEEL and Cal Club Regions' newspaper. The NNJR has preserved and maintained the "Adventures of Raymond the Cat" cartoons as a significant monument to the racers and flaggers in that region.Taram (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a character seen in hobby/speciality/club publicatoins does not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify using the points in WP:Artist. Thanks!Taram (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to United Airlines Flight 93. DeLuca is not notable for his racing career. His cartooning career does not rise to the level of notability. Flight 93, while tragic, was a WP:ONEEVENT and with regards to the medal he is only notable as part of the group, not individually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote in Joseph Deluca could just be redirected to Flight 93. Who's going to look for the "racing driver"? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who would look for DeLuca while doing research. I assume it would be somebody studying one of the three categories listed on his page. That said, I agree with Clarityfiend (talk) that "The hatnote in Joseph Deluca could (should?) just be redirected to Flight 93."

Already discussed in 2004 -- DeLuca's page was already discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_DeLuca. That discussion seems to consider the same Joseph DeLuca as Joseph DeLuca (racing driver), because the woman listed as his new girlfriend also on Flight 93 with DeLuca at the NNJR-SSCA site is also mentioned as a possibility for deletion at that discussion. "The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikimemorial." Rather than redoing the debate of ten years ago, why not figure out what was done with the page then (if anything), abide by that decision, and point this page created in 2013 to that site? Taram (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, and notability standards have changed drastically since then. Also Joseph Deluca is not the same person as Joseph DeLuca (racing driver). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplySo you are saying that you have changed your earlier vote and that the Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) page should be a strong keep and maintained, now. Very well. You are right that the current Joseph Deluca is not the same person as Joseph DeLuca (racing driver); however, I never said that they were, so your argument is irrelevant. Both articles that I mentioned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_DeLuca and Joseph DeLuca (racing driver)) are about the same person. Read the link that I provided and try too respond to what has been written, please. Taram (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One event - the subject's racing career and involvement with the SCCA is completely non-notable by WP:MOTORSPORT standards. -Drdisque (talk) 02:50, 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. Michig (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux Bitola[edit]

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

Hoax article about a fictional company (with claimed company slogan "Macedonia sucks like an Electrolux"), an article that has existed since January 2013, but is part of a larger hoax that apparently started already four years ago. The article has been nominated for deletion at AfD, instead of a request for speedy deletion as a hoax, in order to have a deletion debate on record in case it is being recreated.

The only sources in the article lead to http://www.electrolux.com.mk (though in some cases by way of other URLs, such as electrolux.mk), an apparently home made web site with pictures ripped from the web site of the real Electrolux, the world's second largest manufacturer of home appliances, headquartered in Sweden (which according to their website have no presence in Macedonia). Bitola is a small town in southern Macedonia, and the person who apparently is behind these hoaxes, Dimche/Dimce Palenzo, seems to be a real person living out his fantasies on Wikipedia, but there is no such thing as a "Bitola Stock Exchange" or a "Bitola index" as claimed in the article.

According to the first version of the article "Electrolux Bitola" was claimed to have 10,000+ employees, which would make it a huge company by Macedonian standards, yet the only hits on Google are to its own web site and websites with user created content, with not a single mention in third party sources. There might be a small repair shop for household appliances in Bitola, judging by a picture on the hoax website, but the rest of the article is pure fiction. The article itself is patterned on Electrolux, and the users who have contributed to this article, both named users and IPs, have also made repeated attempts to change the nationality of the real company to Macedonian [16], [17], instead of Swedish, and have also made repeated attempts to enter the name "Dimche Palenzo" both as an original founder of the real Electrolux [18], and as current head of the company, edits which have equally repeatedly been reverted, without any attempts to check it up, which is why the hoax article hasn't been detected until now. Dimche/Dimce Palenzo also has created other hoax material on en-WP (including Draft:Dimche Petko Palenzo, User:Palenzo and the now reverted hijacking attempt User:Frinko), and has also claimed on other pages that he has entered the world of fashion (sourced to a hoax website, http://palenzo.com.mk/ , with a fake web shop, where there are pictures of merchandise, but no prices and no way to buy anything...), but since that material isn't in article space (other than a couple of attempts to create articles as Talk:xx) I will nominate those pages for speedy deletion as hoaxes after this deletion discussion is over. One page (Talk:Dimche Palenzo) has also already been deleted twice as a hoax, first by RHaworth on 1 September this year, and then by JohnCD on 17 September. Thomas.W ^talk 13:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it possible that this may have started as an attempt to make an article about a real, small Macedonian company by copying and adapting an existing article, but claims like "Electrolux DP has a primary listing on the Bitola Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the Bitola index" (copied from the Electrolux article's "Electrolux has a primary listing on the Stockholm Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the OMX Stockholm 30 index") take this firmly into hoax territory. I doubt whether the real company is notable, but even if it is WP:TNT applies here. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or speedy G3/G4) per above. I could blurb about how wrong things are (Macedonian denar is MKD and doesn't end with an additional "euro") but you guys get the idea. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Aoki[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. This reads like a CV and is not impressive. Who your brother was or who you sparred with has no relevance to notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search did not find him mentioned at Sherdog and the article gives no indication of notability. Every source links to where he trains or who his instructors were--none are actually about him. He's not a BJJ black belt so he's never competed at a level that would show he's a notable martial artist. In other words, he completely fails to meet WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Papaursa hit the nail on the head.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 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. Deor (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paralia (Palestine)[edit]

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

Newly created article that just gives the Greek name for part of Palestine. Absolutely nothing to suggest it warrants its own article. Google searches do not find anything of significance. Adding a reference to the name in the main article on Palestine would be more than sufficient. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

noq, I was very clear in my talk page edit that I am going to add to the article shortly. You are wasting other people's time with this spurious AfD. I'm not asking you to wait very long. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid historical article. It was a real, and notable political subdivision. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Perhaps what you really want is to merge it into another article but this is not the place to discuss that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places, Verifiable with significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alamat ng dagat[edit]

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

Google translate indicates that this article is a mere posting of the text of a particular Filipino legend. The article does not discuss the legend in any manner. Wikipedia is not a place to post the text of legends. An article about the legend, analyzing its place in Filipino society, etc., would be useful, but simply posting the text of the legend itself is not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom (at best would transwiki if there were Filipino wikisource and citeable original), and with shades of CSD#A7 because there's no claimed notability. DMacks (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also for lack of coverage in reliable sources. The title translates as "Legend of the Sea", but th text is a creation myth, about a single immortal couple living in a cave who want God to liven-up their world because they were lonely, so they ask for the gift of offspring. This seems different from the creation myth of Lumawig and his wife Bugan. I note that there is no article in the Tagalog Wikipedia under this title. --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. It does not match any of the creation myths collected at http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-phil.html#creationstory. --Bejnar (talk) 21:28, 29 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Shaw[edit]

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

Non-notable school boy cricketer who fails WP:CRIN inclusion. Okay, he smacked some school record, but it's hardly top-level cricket! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No really strong feelings, and the article's not in the best shape at the moment, but the kid did get a heap of coverage (and still does, apparently – just signed a 3.6 million rupee/A$66,000/£36,000 sponsorship deal). Highest score in over a century is a decent claim to notability, and multiple articles in the three largest English newspapers in India is nothing to be sneezed at. IgnorantArmies 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same logic as above. Tintin 15:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IgnorantArmies, sometimesschool athletes, record-setters, and the like are notable, if they receive enough coverage. Compare Mo'ne Davis in the U.S., who admittedly received a bit more publicity. —innotata 05:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the general notability guidelines and have significant coverage in multiple sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:54, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Evans-Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:MMANOT. Only claim to fame is beating a transgender fighter in a not even second tier event. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Has no top tier MMA fights so she fails to meet WP:NMMA. Claiming notability for fighting a transgender fighter would fall under both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. As the article is currently written, the only source is a link to her fight record so she also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Papaursa is right, the rest is BLP1E and NOTINHERITED.Mdtemp (talk) 18:22, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moisés Baute[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets, since then he won a SUPERKOMBAT World Grand Prix!!! You all agreed SUPERKOMBAT is a top tier promotion, so please be fair PRehse, Wikipedia is not just for you! We can all agree SK is second in the world after Glory if not at least top 4 alongside Glory, K-1 and Legend. So still top tier. The last two aren't even hosting events consistently. Moreover, he is National Champion of Spain in boxing. He meets even boxing. Majjorca (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SUPERKOMBAT is not top tier (and adding it in to WP:KICK as you just did without discussion is not good faith). For a kickboxer to become SUPERKOMBAT champion with relatively little experience tells me that it is not top tier. National champion of Spain would just make WP:NBOX (Spain won a single medal at AIBA and therefore just sneaks in) but I can not find any reference to when he won the national championship and against who. The reference provided is just a list of names and is very hazy (yes I read the article) as to what it was for. Please find a single reference specifically to his winning the national championship (at the very minimum I want to know the year) and I will concede. Usually a National Amateur champion would leave some sort of footprint such as competing in the Olympics but I could not find anything. There are quite a few variations on his name so it is possible I missed it.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SUPERKOMBAT is top tier without any discussion, it's not up to you to establish when people are talking on the forums like about being the second after GLORY. In worst case anywhere between #2 and #4 alongside K-1 and Legend, after Glory. If some don't agree like you but they must be objective. Even the user Master Sun Tzu told you that. I don't even need to prove the boxing criteria, though the source is stating clearly, 65 boxing champions of Spain were awarded. If you don't tolerate this and don't accept the thing that SK has become massive, it's clear to be you have something against this promotion. If it wasn't proven in 2011, since then they hosted events all over the world and launched top 10 kickboxers (even if they only were at some moment): Verhoeven, Zimmerman, Anderson Silva, Pereira, Londt, Zhuravlev, Lascenko, Adegbuyi or the Stoica brothers, and Gerges, Edwards, Samedov, Ignashov, Brestovac, Guidon, Kraus, Zambidis, Mo, Sapp and others fought in the SUPERKOMBAT. When Şahin Yakut won the 75MAX trophy in It's Showtime, he was also pretty limited as experience. Wayne Barrett in Glory, another less experienced fighter. It doesn't matter really, Baute is a former boxer who was in huge, tremendous form over the past months. Semi Finals & Final. Even if he will not progress well next, he earned his right to be on Wikipedia. WMC, ISKA, WAKO, WKN, WBC Muaythai and PKA are bodies not kickboxing organisations/promotions. All the ISKA champions suck in comparison with the SUPERKOMBAT champions. Leko at 50 years can become there, whilst in the SK he was on a long losing streak. It's Showtime is [here] and SUPERKOMBAT not. Shame, really. Normally we should have: 1st tier - promotions/bodies (GLORY, SUPERKOMBAT, K-1, Legend/WMC, ISKA, WAKO, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA and whatever), 2nd tier - promotions (FFC, Enfusion, Tatneft, Yokkao, etc). And even 2nd tiers to be considered, because they are really solid promotions. Equality to kickboxing please, same level quality as for the MMA! I expect more from a judo fan. Not to mention that SK is working with WAKO, and WAKO champions are average in the promotion. But yet again WAKO isn't a promotion. Before, it worked more with WKN. All WAKO, WKN & WKA are calling SK as major on their sites. Majjorca (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject doesn't meet WP:KICK and I can find no record of him at the AIBA website. I am withholding a vote to give the author a chance to source the boxing claim or otherwise show notability (besides unilaterally changing WP:KICK). Papaursa (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find that he was senior champion of Spain in 2003 (and junior champion in 2002). And also that he was awarded in 2013 alongside other 64 champions of Spain in boxing, written by ABC a big Spanish newspaper. I can't find a source on the Spanish Boxing Federation website, because they only have 2012-2014 results. Regarding the WP:KICK, I think also the World Grand Prix events of major promotions (K-1, SUPERKOMBAT, etc) should be included, therefore also these tournaement championships not just the normal championships. Do you agree to reach a consensus, please? Majjorca (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:KICK consensus was recently agreed upon after a lengthy discussion, it's unlikely the rules will be changed suddenly just to suit you. His name appearing in a list of names at a locally sponsored event does not show that was an AIBA champion of Spain. Even if he was, his claim of notability would be tenuous. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a 2003 source, Papa! Majjorca (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The problem is that one of them talks about him going to fight in the national junior tournament in 2002 and the other talks about him coaching competitors for the 2003 tournament. There is nothing to show he won the adult championship and that's important because junior or youth titles are not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He won the senior title in 2003. That's senior title, his first senior year. At 18 years, 85 kilograms. Andrés Baute Curbelo was a big hope of the country. In the Junior Championships he competed at the end of 2002, and also won gold but on 91 kg. You can ask him on FB if you don't believe me that he was senior boxing champion of Spain. The 2013 ceremony was only for Spanish senior champs. That's why it was in a big newspaper of Spain. Be careful about reading the article. Some more boxers are presented. In the 2002 one, more athletes won gold medals, in 2003 only Baute because it was a senior tournament, of higher level. Majjorca (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this [19], he was not the senior Spanish boxing champion in 2003 and therefore does not meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My fault then! What about 2007 and later? Majjorca (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what's been found so far he fails WP:NBOX and WP:KICK so he's not notable as a kickboxer or boxer.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mdtemp, please, he doesn't fail WP:KICK. He won the a SUPERKOMBAT World Grand Prix Tournament Championship. Moreover, it was confirmed yesterday that he will face Andrei Stoica at Geneva for his super cruiserweight title in the promotion. per source Majjorca (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please show me how he meets WP:KICK? Winning a Grand Prix tournament doesn't meet KICK. As far as SUPERKOMBAT goes I have concerns about organizations that have world champions that haven't defended their title in 2 years and whose champions aren't ranked in the top 10. Stoica is ranked #10 by Liverkick, so if Baute beats him I'd think there's a good chance he'd move into the top 10 and meet KICK. Until then, if this article is deleted, I have no problems with you keeping a copy of it in your userspace.Mdtemp (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time he certainly appears to fail both WP:NBOX and WP:KICK. As I read WP:KICK even winning the Superkombat championship doesn't provide inherent notability, but it might provide enough of a boost to his ranking to meet KICK. In the meantime, I have no objection to this article being userfied (assuming the vote is to delete it, of course). Papaursa (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:NBOX and WP:KICK. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Boxing Council[edit]

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

Non-notable boxing organization. Article has no sources and the only link is to the organization's home page. It's telling that very few of its championship slots are filled. It's parent organization was recently deleted by AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Professional Boxing Federation for the same reason. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another minor boxing organization with mainly vacant titles and no independent coverage. That fact that it's a sub-organization of an organization that was deleted a few days ago is another indicator that it's not notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no sources except a link to its own web page.Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 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. Michig (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savage High (2016)[edit]

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

A school project with no claim to notability. : Noyster (talk), 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete beyond a case of WP:TOOSOON, the parameters as described truly lack a claim of significance and it's unlikely that this will ever meet well-established notability thresholds... Roberticus talk 08:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went a step further and boldly nominated for WP:CSD A7 as I felt this was the most appropriate action here, but on 2nd thought I wouldn't object if anybody felt a full debate was warranted... Roberticus talk 16:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider reading WP:A7, which states quite plainly that "books, albums, software, or other creative works" aren't eligible for A7 deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vote revised, thanks for the heads up...Roberticus talk 18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per article on this purported 2016 film being waaaaay TOO SOON. I wish the best of luck to Shockwave Productions, but advise that amateur student films rarely become notable enough for Wikipedia, and the trailer and "Official" page do not seem promising. Allow undeletion or recreation if this ever does meet the requisites for coverage set by WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iHeartRadio Music Festival[edit]

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

Unreferenced cruft. Laun chba ller 07:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Unreferenced cruft" isn't a valid deletion rationale and doesn't equate to being non-notable. I think WP:BEFORE applies here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not encyclopedic in current form, but the "AFD is not cleanup" principle seems to apply here, as the event appears to clearly meet WP:SIGCOV, i.e [20], [21], [22], [23] and [24], among other plentiful coverage... Roberticus talk 08:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to clean this up but got straight into an editwar with a non-responding IP. So the only possible course of action left is WP:TNT. Overall the present version is a massive setlist with some extra info. And that setlist is of no encyclopaedic value but fancruft or even corporate promo (I got the idea that a song was added as soon as the song was ended on the running version of the festival). The Banner talk 09:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Look for instance on these edits: Added {current} tag to article: event starts soon, Removed current tag; Show's over for the night, Removed current tag; the show's finally over and I can't wait for next year's event. That sounds like a journalist on scene giving a live report of the festival. And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a newssite. The Banner talk 09:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, don't criticize me!! Those summaries were meant to inform people whether the event has started or ended, okay? Like they say, you can't just judge a book by its cover!! Paul Badillo (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The Banner talk 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've only been on Wikipedia for only a few months so shut your mouth. Paul Badillo (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Stay civil, ok? — Gwalla | Talk 20:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other than some cleaning up and the addition of some references, I think this article should be okay. I know it shows the artists and setlists of those years but there should be at least some references. Paul Badillo (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clearly notable recurring festival. While a line-up of artists is not really all that encyclopedic, it should be simple enough to build on it with sourced commentary, and I added four sources in just a couple of minutes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & The Banner - The whole layout is wrong and won't be changed anytime soon, IMHO we don't need list after list of every song played at the festival, I wouldn't mind if it was just the singers but to list every song too is a bit OTT... (Yep WP:IDONTLIKEIT). –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it was (or even is) cruft or not, it had stopped being "unreferenced" before you left your response. Now it has 20 references. Why do you assume it won't be changed any time soon? Articles change all the time. It's part of our whole purpose and process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I said it won't change I meant no one would have the balls to remove the list and if they were to do that they'd no doubt be reverted .... ... But since you've kindly removed the crap I now see no reason to delete :) ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. :) It can be a pain in the neck when people restore stuff that isn't supported by policy, but the way out is generally consensus. If reverted, I will talk about it, achieve consensus and go forward accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now the crap's been deleted I see no reason for this to be deleted. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Defenitely, all the setlists and other non-useful stuff has been removed so now there's no reason why it needs to be deleted. Paul Badillo (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable, and now the article's cleaned up as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very notable event over 1 billion social impressions that is broadcast on hundreds on radio stations in the United States, streamed online and shown on network tv in the United States. All the the performers are large well known acts. The setlists are helpfully information to music fans. Anyone wanting to delete this article is not a music fan or jealous of the reach and impact of this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.243.230 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of having an agenda just because they disagree with you. — Gwalla | Talk 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has been cleared up and doesn't appear to be cruft, and it certainly appears to be well referenced now.Ceronomus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a large festival, comparable to many other articles we have on wikipedia. Nothing outrageous here. Of course I am just seeing the cleaned up version. A little OR, yes, I've seen it cycle through on Palladia (added a source). Fancruft or not, this size of an event affects many people. Its not something wikipedia should ignore or delete. Trackinfo (talk) 10:12, 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Gorrin[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would keep the article as subject might meet WP:GNG [25], [26] [27], [28] etc., but it is also possible to incubate the page - Wellington Phoenix starts in the A-League on 12 October and I believe he will almost certainly appear in the roster. No need to delete. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no guarantee that he will play. He may get injured or who knows what might happen. The article can be re-created easily when he actually makes a pro appearance.Simione001 (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage (the sources provided above are routine sports journalism), meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The fact that potential future appearances do not confer notability remains one of the most long standing consensuses of the WikiProject Football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not convinced the coverage has been "significant" enough to justify an article at this point, sorry. Giant Snowman 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll incubate the content in my user space and will watch the results at http://www.wellingtonphoenix.com/ in the next weeks to recreate it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That also works - so I'd ask the closing admin to USERFY. Giant Snowman 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NFOOTBALL & GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:08, 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callipolis (mythology)[edit]

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

Unsourced, original research, incoherent, looks like copy-and-paste Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copied and pasted from various sources (such as this one) and Wikipedia articles (see Pella and Philosopher king) without permission or proper attribution. The subject of this article is unclear, is it the village of Kallipoli or Plato's concept of utopian city-state? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be some independent notability to the subject (it's a close call), and ordinarily we don't use afd for cleanup, but the article is such a mess that there is literally nothing salvageable here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find in-depth secondary sources for the mythological subject of the article, so it seems to fail notability guidelines. The disparate meanings of the terms are already mentioned in the disambiguation page at Callipolis. Without secondary sources to develop this topic, it is best to delete the article. Because the existence of Callipolis in Greek mythology is verifiable, the mention on the disambiguation page of the mythological person should be retained. --Mark viking (talk) 20:51, 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 redirect to Rize (band). WP:SOFTREDIRECT (and yes, I made that up, this is really akin to SOFTDELETE but for which there's been no valid argument given for not leaving a redirect in place) j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Vibes[edit]

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

Another one that could just be linked to this band. Wgolf (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This album reached #14 on the Oricon Albums Chart [29], which by itself is not enough to justify an individual article, but it may indicate there are RS out there.

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 06:09, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 05:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tonight (Sandra song)[edit]

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

A single with no notability (and it reached an amazing number 77 in Germany-not quite a notable record you know) Probably should just be linked to the album or the singer. Wgolf (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 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 05:58, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kendrick[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG, nor do I believe he meets the criteria of MUSICBIO, all but one of his albums are on his own label. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 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 05:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after searching, cannot verify that he meets the WP:SIGCOV standard... Roberticus talk 14:08, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Night In Texas (Band)[edit]

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

WP:SPA creator has not established that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and I couldn't either. WP:TOOSOON at best. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 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 05:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that WP:SIGCOV is met... Roberticus talk 08:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 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 delete. happy to revisit if further sources are adduced Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Athal[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of Notability WP:BASIC Kingroyos (talk) 16:33, 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 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I found some independent reporting on him in French including this:[30] and there's probably more. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in English-language sources, but open to trans-wikifying this to the French Wikipedia if they're interested... Roberticus talk 14:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roberticus: By WP:GNG sources "do not have to be in English." --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

irregardless, the subject of this article, IMHO, does not appear to meet the GNG in its own right, and in support of this view, I found it interesting that, though what coverage there is is in the French language, the subject has no article at the French Wikipedia... Roberticus talk 21:58, 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 delete. anyone is welcome to try and write something that isn't a copyvio or close paraphrase Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Y. Li[edit]

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

This almost looks like a copyright issue as well as autobiography. I had another article that was Eldon yu-zen Li up for prod until I realized that its the same person. looking at this it might need a afd. So delete? Wgolf (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does look like a copyright issue with the external link listed in the entry. As far as whether he is notable, editor-in-chief positions for journals usually meet WP:PROF, but I'm not sure if these are notable journals. I notice that he is an honorary editor-in-chief for a couple of them. It looks like most of the journals originate from the same publisher. I'm not sure if that weighs into the discussion. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:55, 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 01:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio/close paraphrasing of [31], which is also why it looks autobiographic because it is from an autobiography. WP:PROF is good though with named chairs (2005/2008) and governmental recognition (Ministry of Science and Technology's Most Outstanding Research Award). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lead, external links and categories only. Delete rest as WP:Copyvio. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michie Gleason[edit]

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

I was unsure what to say, but her only major film is Days of Heaven which she was just a assistant to the director for. And the biggest thing about her is that she once dated Terrence Malick, aka not inherited issue there. Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not so sure about this; she did direct three feature films, and while two of them seem to have gotten little attention (despite unusual casting of actors like Roland Gift and Oona O'Neill Chaplin), the third, Summer Heat, did receive a real release and reviews that include direct commentary about her work as director [32][33][34]. Deserves further attention, at least. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah true, I was iffy about her. The article was kind of just laying around for a while, and the most I could find for her on any of the pages was just that she once dated a famous director which just makes it sound like not inherited. If anything this could help the article expand though. Wgolf (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on commenter, nom's reply, and the fact that's she's directed films with stubs of their own whose notability isn't currently challenged... Roberticus talk 08:53, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 05:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balatonizer[edit]

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

A very obscure band with just one cd it looks like, can't find any info at all. Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:31, 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 01:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonna Leigh Stack[edit]

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

An actress who just has one role. Granted it is a TV show at least. (Though I'm no expert on soap operas either), but looking at that, maybe be linked to this List of Santa Barbara cast and characters which I found on what links here. Wgolf (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 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. Michig (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CADO Systems Technical Information[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, no rs could be found. Was previously deleted by prod and has been tagged for notability for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sources evidencing notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL, anything of use could be merged with CADO Systems... Roberticus talk 13:37, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Johnson (actor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has had a career as an actor, but not enough to meet the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachu*setts-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-He has a very impressive listing and does meet criteria on here. Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lead role in Letters to God and numerous guest starring roles attest to notability per WP:NACTOR Roberticus talk 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per both above. Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population reduction conspiracy theory[edit]

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

Original research, the entire article is original synthesis, describes and names a conspiracy theory that seemingly only exists in the editor's head - no sources given to establish the independent existence of this particular conspiracy theory. greenrd (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SPLC gives a fair amount of coverage to the theory here; other reliable coverage can be found (e.g. here and here). Related content in New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Population control, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, and HIV conspiracy theories. The article is a mess of WP:SYNTH. If this articles survives, everything should go except the first sentence... and that could be cited to the the SPLC link. - Location (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Population control. This basically duplicates that section, but it uses synthesis and original research to do it. If someone can come up with better sources, the article could possibly be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 19 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 03:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into human population control. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't actually out to get you. It's no secret that there are quite draconian measures already being used such as China's one-child policy. The idea of using disease to attack populations is not exactly new either - see Guns, Germs, and Steel for details. Andrew (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article refers to a specific conspiracy theory which does not appear to be mentioned in any online media as far as I can tell. The fact that governments such as that of China may have plans related to population control has little to do with this. The article is basically a hodgepodge of various people's opinions on the size of the world population together with wild (and unsourced) speculation on various topics. It would be unreasonable to merge this content into any existing article. It should be deleted per WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the SPLC source cited above refers to a specific theory of the radical right in the U.S. that the U.N. wants to depopulate America specifically. That is not the theory discussed in the article. Actually, in the article it is not even clear who the conspirators are supposed to be. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR/synthesis. If there are specific 'population reduction' conspiracy theories which can be shown to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, they may merit inclusion in relevant articles - but without a source which discusses 'population reduction' conspiracy theories generally as a topic, there would be no legitimate grounds for compiling an article from disparate sources as has been (badly) attempted here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR and synthesis unsupported by reliable independent secondary sources. The conspiracy theory mentioned in the SPLC source is not the topic of the present article. Cab be deleted in its entirety. I see nothing worth merging that isn't already in potential target articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources cited deal with overpopulation. None of them have anything to do with forcible population reduction. The actual information about the components of the conspiracy theory is entirely unsourced. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Roy[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Fails the three criteria at WP:NACTOR. VQuakr (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. The sources are pretty much nothing but trivial coverage. Orasis (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like it was written by a company .... Both The whole caps thing and the image all just seems odd!, Anyway per above Fails NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Too soon, but I do find it amusing how it says she is perhaps best known for when she has only one role. Wgolf (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I can whip up a quick page for the film that would pass NFILM, we could probably redirect there since that seems to be all she's known for at this point in time. I'll see what I can do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reclaim (film). This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The film itself is notable, but this wasn't the type of role where Roy would gain individual notability based upon her participation. That sort of thing is usually reserved for the extremely well-known films like The Hunger Games, where there are almost always a ton of articles that discuss the actor in detail apart from the film. Her other accomplishments haven't gained any true coverage either- not that they aren't impressive, but we would still require coverage of her roles and I just can't see where this is out there. If she does gain more coverage in the future, we can always un-redirect and flesh it out from there but for now she just doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to request that all of the SPAs that edited the account please read over our WP:COI guidelines. (Since there were four of them, not including the account named after Roy herself.) I get the impression that this was likely written by someone involved with Roy, such as her agent or perhaps some of her friends- although the writing gives off the impression that it was written by an agent, paid editor, or publicity company of some sort. If by some chance they are all from one company, I'd also recommend reading over WP:MEAT. If you were brought on to create the article or to edit it, you need to be very careful and ensure that you read over our guidelines for notability (WP:NACTOR), WP:NOTAVOTE, and sourcing (WP:RS). In particular I'm talking about the part of the article that discussed Roy's professional history. It's very, very common for people to come on and argue that because an actor modeled or was otherwise related to a notable person/organization/topic that they gain notability from that, but that just isn't the case- we would still require some sort of coverage that talked about this in depth. So far the only stuff I've seen about her really only discusses her in brief or in relation to Reclaim- it's just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh- a note to closing admin: You may need to protect the redirect in order to avoid re-creation of the article, as this was already A7'd before. (It was originally a PROD, but was A7'd.) She didn't qualify for an A7 deletion, but it does kind of make me concerned about attempts to re-create the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was an attempt to blank the page and re-create a new article, so these concerns do seem to be valid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second note: I did remove quite a bit from the article, as I wanted to trim it down to a more manageable article that better fit our basic style guidelines. You can see the original article here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79. It's obvious that this and the IMdB profile were written by her parent or manager. I'd be fine with a redirect and indef move protection. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 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. Michig (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Data[edit]

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

Non-notable company, advertisement written by an SPA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Promo bs that belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this was notable, it would need to be nearly completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find no independent sources other than a routine contract bid. A firm going about its business, but of no encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:36, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Casino[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, a non-notable attraction/organisation Murry1975 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No different from any other open pool. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deal, New Jersey. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:48, 27 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). Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewspaperArchive.com[edit]

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

Not notable website and company. ...William 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I use this website a lot for researches for articles on companies and biographies. A majority of the references I use come from this site. I find their boolean search functions very useful. This feature is entirely not-existent on Newspapers.com. I signed up for an account through Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. I see that the article link get redirected to Ancestry.com. Many state library website link to them. Also, deleting this page would create a lot of redlinks. See:WhatLinksHere. Looking at WP:N, I don't see a good argument that this article is NOT notable. I agree that there needs to be more or better citations. It just needs someone to take the time to find better refernces. Nyth83 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect I changed my mind. Perhaps it would be better to copy any useful information in this page to a sub-section of Heritage Microfilm, Inc. and then create redirects to avoid creating redlinks. I am also confused about the relationship with Heritage Archives, Inc.. The article about the web site says this it is owned by Heritage Microfilm but both company articles say they own the website. There may need to be a consolidation of the the two company articles also. The Heritage Archives is very short and probably lacks notability also. I looks like in may just be a division of Heritage Microfilm anyway and should be merged into a subsection of the Heritage Archives article. Nyth83 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Addendum Just found this news story about the site and companies: Under Investigation Nyth83 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Addendum 2 I just did some BOLD editing and copied the information from both the NewspaperArchive.com article and the Heritage Archives, Inc. stub article into new sections in Heritage Microfilm, Inc.. The Microfilm article still needs a fair amount of cleanup but the other two articles can be deleted. I just do not know how to handle the redirects. Nyth83 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyth83: I've reverted your attempt; the closer will get it if it ends up closing that way. Ansh666 07:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used "Newspaper Archive" for several years while researching a book, and found it very useful and generally accurate.

The problem of mis-dated articles arises from the difficulty of OCRing old papers. The quality has improved with improvements in the technique.

I think we can maintain this page -- but I would add that, since I ended my subscription to "Newspaper Archive" they have continued to send me emails, even though I click on "subscribe" each time.

gpeterw (talk) 11:43, 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 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The responses above amount to saying "It is useful." This would be helpful if we were debating whether it is useful and verifiable, but being useful does not really tell us whether it is notable. Do reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of it? Does it somehow satisfy WP:ORG? Edison (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 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 redirect to Zone 66. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance (demogroup)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to Zone 66, their only notable product. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other activities listed in the article are notable, such as reverse-engineering how the Gravis Ultrasound worked and releasing the information ahead of Gravis' own SDK; also, creating the PMODE and PMODE/W 32-bit DOS extender was an open-source activity before the movement was formally defined. Article should stay, but with additional references. --Trixter (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any reliable sources that confirm this? --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources in online diskmags, BBS file archives, etc. from the 1990s when the group was active. References to these online files can be obtained; whether or not those are considered reliable sources, I am not sure. --Trixter (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trixter, reliable sources will have some sort of editorial control and therefore come from some position of vetted authority czar ♔ 15:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the demoscene time period in question (1990s) was only documented on BBS discussions and files, and IRC chats and Usenet groups, I can't imagine what a reliable source would be from that time period. Demoscene culture was only rarely mentioned in magazines. Clearly the events and achievements occurred; the files themselves are evidence. But I can't make those sources fit Wikipedia's definition of what a reliable source should be. --Trixter (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trixter, we are not doubting the existence of the events and demogroups. But merely existing is not enough to establish notability in Wikipedia. Please see WP:N. Also, don't forget that there are many demoscene-related topics that have been covered by reliable sources. The demoscene itself, for example, is clearly notable, because it has been discussed by multiple reputable sources. Unfortunately, Renaissance doesn't seem to have had the same fate. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this list is going to need some revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the same list for any subfield. Article topics without coverage in reliable sources (?) are invariably deleted (or redirected). WP has articles about all sorts of things, but the minimum requirement is that we can at least source them to some expert facts with some editorial backing. czar ♔ 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go https://www.scene.org/search.php?search=Renaissance&start=0 and http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=544 Numtek (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are lists of files as far as I can tell. It would take original research to say anything about them. The page on reliable sources explains more about this. I also recommend the links off of WP:42. czar ♔ 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zone 66. Finding nothing from reliable sources or a WP:VG/RS search. Current article is all unsourced fan stuff. Title is useful, however, as a redirect term to their only notable game (as Salv put it), though I'd add that I wasn't able to find much on that game either (it'll likely end up deleted if print sources don't show up). Anyway, though I see nothing to merge, redirects are cheap, and that's the way to go when no sources are available. czar ♔ 17:36, 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 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for the useful and civil discussion. Unfortunately, WP:WHYN is persuasive here. There is not adequate reliable coverage to write a verifiable article on this topic. ~KvnG 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lords (demogroup)[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable demogroup. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is unfortunately very little online information about The Lords. This is not in itself reason to flag the non-notability card. If nothing else, notability is established by association with The Judges. --Frodet (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The problem with the nature of demogroups in general and their activities, the time period and the target audience makes it very hard to find sources which are online - or not online for that matter. I keep adding sources as I find them ("The Lords" crops up in an awful lot of places...). I still believe they are notable due to their early arrival and the volume and quality of releases (released internationally by Outlet, see also [35]). --Frodet (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll add this to the list as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we have a newspaper article especially noting their sound-chip skills and at least two of their productions was published as covermount of the Outlet magazine. They thus fulfil WP:NONPROFIT. // Liftarn (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It will be difficult to assess notability using internet searches of a group that started in 1986 and is no longer with us. ~KvnG 16:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is the article is supported by six newspaper articles and a handful of other sources. Not that bad. If someone could read trough the Demo&Co columns in old issues of Advanced ZAT Programming we could probably expand it. // Liftarn (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Judges (demogroup)[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel notability has been established. If you look at [36], The Judges are among the top-15 rating demo groups, and the (one of two) earliest. --Frodet (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only reliable sources can establish notability at Wikipedia. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give feedback on which of the sources I have edited in are not reliable. --Frodet (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of the sources in the article qualify as reliable, per WP:RS. Also, The Judges are only mentioned in passing, which is not enough to establish their notability in Wikipedia per WP:N. --Λeternus ^(talk) 11:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned on a number of pages of this book. I suggest they are at least a plausible redirect to Demoscene, Demogroup or some related article. James500 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see [37] from 23:40. --Frodet (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this demoscenen nonsense must be terminated from wikipedia. noone gives a damn about those hippies 62.143.156.22 (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ok it seems this list is getting out of date very fast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are noted as early C64 demoscene pioneers as supported by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - There may be pre-internet sources out there but given they only existed a couple years, I doubt it. ~KvnG 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. --do ncr am 16:05, 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 speedy keep. as meets WP:SIGCOV, I'm closing this early as it was only nominated a month ago.... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unidan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable internet forum super user. Byates5637 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Not only is this the 5th AfD in the past few months, there is nothing new in the nominator's rationale that is any different than the other AfDs. Without explaining how the article is about a "non-notable" subject, the sources in the article refute that claim, especially without any elaboration on how Fox News and Vice supposedly do not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the WP:SIGCOV standard, and has passed multiple prior afd debates, establishing community consensus... Roberticus talk 08:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Race of My Life[edit]

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

The book fails WP:NBOOK. I and User:Sitush have tried redirecting it to the subject of the book, Milkha Singh. But some IPs keep reverting it. Hence requesting deletion or redirection and salting/locking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt as per nomination. CutestPenguin ^discuss 13:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This request should have been made at WP:RPP. Vandalism is not a grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum Nomination states that there is a history of an attempt by the nominator to redirect this article for non-notability, but there is no consensus for that view, and that the lack of consensus is the reason for the attempted deletion. This is a dispute that can be resolved without admin tools. As stated at WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." As per WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination says there is attempt by nominator plus one other editor too in redirecting it rather than going through the lengthy procedures of AfD which probably might result in redirect. Plus, the redirecting in the nomination is just an option. Participants at Afd can very well form a consensus to delete it and not even redirect it especially given the history of promotional re-creations. So i don't think its a wrong forum. Btw, your opinion, other than it being the wrong forum, is not clear to me. Are you saying it should be deleted or redirected or kept-and-edited or what? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per [38], this article has never been deleted, so it has never been re-created. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your position seems clear to me that you think that the issues here can be resolved with normal editing. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion on the talk page, which is also mentioned in WP:BEFORE. I see no argument in the edit history, either, that suggests that the article should be deleted. IMO, this dispute does not need to bind the time of AfD volunteers. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that there are uncivil comments in the edit history. I support an incivility block for [39]. This is not a reason to take an article to AfD, especially as it makes it appear that retaliation is a component of the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that my opinion is not clear to you and asking whether or not I think this topic should be deleted is not a well-considered question, as I have already stated that this is a dispute that can be resolved without admin tools. I have also quoted from WP:BEFORE as follows: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." I have also quoted from deletion policy, as follows: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not created only after they are deleted. An article can be created from a redirect also, which has happened here twice, which in English would be called re-creation. What normal editing? If the topic fails WP:NBOOKS, howmuchsoever abnormal editing would also not make it notable. I never nominated it because some IP used abusive language. Its you presuming that. Yes, there is content dispute here in the way that i believe there should be no content in it. And re-read what i wrote. I didn't ask you only if your opinion is to delete it or not. I also asked if should be kept. That's giving all possible options. And lastly, WP is not compulsory. So you can very well choose to save your time and eventually of others too by not making them read all this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are replying to my !vote. If you didn't want others reading my reply to your reply, I don't know why you would start asking questions. You can also withdraw the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing the concept of "abnormal editing" makes no sense to me, as "normal editing" is a term quoted from WP:BEFORE, and means editing that can be done without admin tools including redirecting and reverting a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware that you listed options other than delete. The fact that I didn't explicitly mention those other options does not mean that I didn't respond. Please see the statement, "IMO, this dispute does not need to bind the time of AfD volunteers." I hope my position is now clear. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your position is still not clear but its clear its not worth clearing either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:47, 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 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the book is notable on its own: [40], [41], [42], [43] etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented by Vejvančický, this seems to cut the mustard for WP:BKCRIT #1. Roberticus talk 13:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too find the sources above convincing as far as notability via GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be improved in terms of references and coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killed for Less (album)[edit]

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

Album that has been tagged since early 2009 with no indication of notability. Redirect to the band. Wgolf (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's article, per nom, album doesn't appear to meet GNG on its own... Roberticus talk 08:39, 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 redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquis Submersus (album)[edit]

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

Another album with basically not much info on that could be redirected or deleted. Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's article, album doesn't appear to meet GNG on its own... Roberticus talk 08:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Britton (actor)[edit]

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

meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG... Roberticus talk 19:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Maybe someday, but not now.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslee Bender[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what I found is not enough to keep this and that non-reliable source for the "Complaints probably violates WP:BLP... Roberticus talk 09:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete although I found several references and added them, still don't think there are enough to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 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 redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Dasgupta[edit]

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

Only one film role. WP:ONEEVENT. JDDJS (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not going to vote as I have bias in favor of keeping the article. Just mentioning that WP:ONEEVENT states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". The film Pather Panchali is a highly significant film in world cinema, and this actor played one of the two leading roles in the film. So, I guess a case may be built in favor of keeping the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She did not play one of the two leading roles. She plays the fourth lead. But more importantly, this article offers no information that cannot simply be added to Pather Panchali. JDDJS (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pather Panchali 1 TV serial wonders are redirected to the TV serial. Let's do the same here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 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. Fails WP:BIO/WP:PROF. This is the fifth reincarnation of the article hence now protected from recreation except by an administrator. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Petrovic[edit]

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

Looks like blatant promotion to my eyes. Article has been speedy deleted for promotion 3 out of 4 times in the last 12 months. This version was tagged for speedy under g11 and an IP removed it, forcing AFD. A quick scan through the at a random sample of the numerous articles posted states nothing about the subject of the article, just writings on various subjects. The references section simply lists a couple of papers the subject has posted, so the biography appears to lack sources. Looks to fail the notability criteria in WP:PROF, though I might be wrong on the front. Dolescum (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, considering the prior history, protect against recreation DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I am happy to make any edits or changes to make it comply with wikipedias regulations. There is no problem changing it so everyone is happy. Just give us the chance to sort it out please. There are more sources to back this page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.209.214 (talk) 01:52, 29 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. Michig (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorkers For Children[edit]

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

Tiny non-notable non-profit. Orange Mike | Talk 01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If The New York Times writes about an organization, it is probably notable. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found some coverage from the Huffington Post [44]. I'd say that this has gotten enough coverage over the years to justify a keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:19, 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. maybe this will change after the election Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Wong[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician whose only substantive claim of notability is being an unelected candidate for Mayor of Vancouver in the 2014 municipal election. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — she'll qualify for an article if she wins the election, certainly, but isn't automatically entitled to one just for having her name on the ballot — and with only two sources the article isn't sourced up enough to get her past WP:GNG. As always, no prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the election, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did read this interview which gave me some pause, but it's all in the context of election related publicity, an election most sources which reference her note she is highly unlikely to win... Roberticus talk 09:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has significant coverage which makes her notable per WP:GNG. These are just a handful of the recent pieces covering her: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Her likelihood of winning has nothing to do with WP:GNG. The coverage she has received makes her notable per se. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the campaign itself cannot contribute to getting an unelected candidate over GNG. The media are required to give "equal time" to all candidates in elections in their coverage area — so media coverage is not a thing that some candidates get while others don't, but a thing which all candidates always get, and which would therefore vitiate our rules about excluding unelected candidates who weren't already notable for other things. Rather, unless you can properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, campaign coverage falls under both WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E — and, short of a media firestorm along the lines of what happened to Christine O'Donnell, contributes nothing toward encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media are not required to cover all candidates equally. There are plenty of fringe candidates in municipal politics who don't get coverage. WP:ROUTINE refers to "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." The coverage I've cited is not routine. As for WP:BLP1E, she has coverage for previous political activity (1, [45], [46]) so that doesn't apply. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still all coverage of a different political candidacy, and thus still doesn't count for anything more than coverage of this particular candidacy does. (Being an unelected/non-winning candidate in a federal electoral district doesn't confer notability either — a person has to win a seat in the House of Commons, not merely run for one and lose, to claim notability on that basis.) And fringe candidates may not garner as much coverage as "major" candidates do, but they still most certainly do garner media coverage — no candidate in any election ever goes entirely uncovered. And finally, it's a longstanding AFD consensus, not some random thing I personally made up myself, that campaign coverage does fall under ROUTINE and BLP1E if you haven't already properly established that the candidate was already notable enough for an article before the campaign began — if the main claim of notability and the weight of the sourcing are sitting on candidacies for offices that the subject hasn't won, then you have to demonstrate that the volume of coverage has gone far beyond what could normally be expected (i.e. the Christine O'Donnell situation) before you can claim that they've passed GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that she has notability per WP:POLITICIAN. But the number of in-depth news sources about her give her notability. Clearly you don't see it this way. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a politician is the context that the sources are covering her in, so POLITICIAN is the inclusion standard they have to be judged against. They can't give her some generic form of notability while simultaneously failing to give her notability under the very inclusion guideline that applies to what the sources are covering her for.

There is a potential path through WP:GNG here, I should point out — but it lies in shifting the substance and the weight of sourcing onto her Chinese head tax activism rather than her unelected candidacies. She can't be notable as a politician and not notable as a politician at the same time — but if you can beef the activism part up enough, she might be notable enough for that to counter her failure to pass POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Bearcat's previous characterization of the coverage being discussed as routine as consistently within the context of ordinary election related news and therefore still don't believe there's enough here to justify a keep. Roberticus talk 13:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The election is Saturday, November 15, 2014. --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 29 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. Michig (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subramaniam Mohanadas[edit]

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

This article is about my father. We don't want an article about our family on Wikipidia. This is our privacy. Thank you, Front Door Man (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no valid reason for deletion, Anyone can nominate an article for deletion claiming to be a relative .... Plus he may not want the article deleted anyway? –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May not satisfy the notability guideline for academics. See the reference in the article discussing political influence and lack of qualification: [47]. Edison (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vice-chancellor of a university (that's the head of a university in Commonwealth countries, equivalent to the president in the USA). Of course he's notable. Meets WP:NACADEMICS #6. No valid reason given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep unquestioned keep--head of a university. The level of his performance and the possible basis of his appointment are irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG and Necrothesp. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS. The subject was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Jaffna.His appointment and qualification are controversial but the notability is unquestionable .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's reason for requesting deletion isn't a valid one and notability is established according to WP:NACADEMICS.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:50, 27 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. Bundling unrelated articles is not appropriate. Please list them separately if you believe that they should be deleted. Michig (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Grigoriyev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While these three articles are unrelated, I assume no one will mind very much if I bundle them, since they spent a cumulative 48 days at AfD and garnered no votes. I won't reiterate my arguments for deletion: please go here, here and here to see them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: You are only supposed to bundle articles that are closely related. The articles being nominated have nothing in common, and should really be in separate AfDs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I know. And I do that regularly. However, I don't think it will harm the project if instead of hosting three disparate discussions on three obscure topics that garnered no interest whatsoever at AfD, we ignore that rule for once, roll them into one package and hopefully get rid of them all at once. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. You can't bundle three utterly unrelated articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autoexit[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to have been discontinued, or has this been created by an SPA for the purpose of advertising? - The ChampionMan 1234 00:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Per nom, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article created by WP:SPA contributor User:Asoft911 for a product by Asoft. Note also that the userpage description says "My hobby project is www.asoft.be". No evidence that this meets WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 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. Michig (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Italiano[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question, do friendlies count where they're between two teams that play in fully professional leagues? Italiano played in a friendly between Wellington Phoenix and West Ham United, according to this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Response - No they don't, only competitive league or cup matches between two professional sides are considered fully professional.Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 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 redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters (2013)#Peri Lomax. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby O'Donnell[edit]

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

A actress that is basically way too soon. She is still very very young so maybe in a few years she will deserve her own page. Just not yet. Wgolf (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters (2013)#Peri Lomax since at the moment that's the only thing she's ever been in. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Davey2010. Both notability concerns and current content suggest a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, agreed that the brevity of the article attests to the appropriateness of this outcome... Roberticus talk 13:24, 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.