Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 September	28 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 merge to List of Dark Shadows characters. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Stoddard[edit]

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

A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be worst deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dark Shadows characters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 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 merge to List of Left Behind characters. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymie Steele[edit]

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

A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be worst deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Left Behind characters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge if there's anything useful here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Kosakoski[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO Aerodynex (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – perhaps meets WP:GNG with at least three articles about him in the newspaper The Kamloops Daily News; I've added the citations just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think he may be notable in his town (Kamloops) but unless we can find sources outside of his local newspaper I would not consider him to be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.Orasis (talk) 03:39, 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 23:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR here — if you go to the article on Da Vinci's Inquest, the series that's claimed as his most notable role, it doesn't even list him as a "recurring" cast member at all (and IMDb gives him all of three episodes.) So what we have here is an actor who, to date, has only had supporting or guest roles and has not yet graduated to the more prominent roles that would be necessary to meet NACTOR — and a couple of articles in his own hometown newspaper, which aren't enough to confer encyclopedic notability. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually meets an inclusion standard, but right now I have to go with the delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symons Type[edit]

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

No indication of notability, or even that it exists outside one person's farm. No references, no hits on G-books, only relevant hit on Scholar is a c.v. for one Lynton Barry Symons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It just seems like a well developed credibility campaign. --Michael (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could be a really lame hoax for all we know. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It really doesn't help that the one external link on the page consists entirely of 2 links to seemingly unrelated sites. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:59, 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 redirect to Man-Kzin Wars. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buford Early[edit]

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

An fictional character that has very little notability. Unless if there is some major film coming out or something for this character I think delete or redirect. Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Man-Kzin Wars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I did a quick search, and it does not appear that this character is notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 4 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 Soft Delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges of Distinction[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this college guide is notable. Ironically, the only reliable source I've found with significant coverage is a book by Zac Bissonnette basically calling it a pay-to-play scam.

It gets a lot of Google hits from press releases, but the Google Books results tell the real story: the aforementioned book, the site's own print edition, a couple passing mentions in Peterson's college guides, ads in city magazines, and a whole bunch of unrelated uses of the phrase.

The article was created by SnicholsCoD, whose username suggests they edited on behalf on Colleges of Distinction.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:58, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:55, 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 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this for Notability over 2 years ago and that position remains unchanged. I can see various press releases by colleges publicising their inclusion in the guide (which needs to be read in conjunction with the book text linked by the nominator above), but nothing to confirm the guide is notable. Fails WP:NWEB, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 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. J04n(talk page) 00:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Bourbon Liqueur[edit]

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

WP:SPA recreation of article on non-notable liquor. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The only in-depth coverage (http://thetipsytechie.com/2014/03/24/sweet-surrender-mystic/ and http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/11/mystic-bourbon-a-durham-spirit-born.html) are interview-based articles that aren't independent. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I would have to agree and when reading the introduction on the second link "A pair of spirited entrepreneurs are hoping to get their bourbon liqueur from their kitchens to your liquor cabinet." I think it's quite clear that this product is not notable, yet. Orasis (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you quoted from is almost a year old. In the meantime, there has been national coverage of Mystic including a high rating in Wine Enthusiast and many other positive responses around the web - including reviewers who have no relation to the company and have large followings of their own. As a regional phenomenon, Mystic has grown many times faster than many of the spirits products that have their own articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajtra which has no sources other than commerce sites, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passo%C3%A3 which has no sources other than the official website. I'm not sure why one popular regional product, recognized by the national press and which merits a listing in one part of Wikipedia, is denied a more in-depth discussion.50.52.218.250 (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've PROD'd the two articles you refer to. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, that's exactly the wrong thing to do. I've been immersed in spirits (pun intended) for a long time. The richness of the field lies in its diversity. Going and deleting references to harder to find products impoverishes Wikipedia. Why don't you consider instead that if a product is out there in the marketplace, selling well, garners the interest of enough people to keep the brand in production, people might want to know something about it? Now Mystic is way beyond that with multiple national reviews. I'm opposing your PRODs on those other pages. Is there some shortage of hard drive space at Wikipedia that I don't know about? How about accepting that spirits, particularly innovative ones produced on a smaller scale with local and regional ingredients are notable for their cultural significance?50.52.218.250 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a catalog and just because a certain product exists does not, by it's existence alone, make it notable enough to be included within an encyclopedia. Right, now, in regards to your deletion of the PRODs on the other pages you are not to remove those tags. If you oppose a deletion you are supposed to make your voice heard on the article's PROD talk page. Orasis (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were proposed for speedy deletion, and the notice at the top said that if I opposed speedy deletion, and if I enriched the articles with additional sources, which I did, I could remove the notice, so I did. I would respectfully suggest that unless someone can demonstrate at least some subject matter knowledge, running around deleting entries just to seem consistent begs more questions than it answers. 50.52.218.250 (talk) 08:45, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, this liqueur does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirement - also known as WP:GNG. The requirement is that the subject must have received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Each of those terms has a specific definition here, and the bottom line is that we can't have an article about this liqueur until mainstream sources like major regional newspapers (not foodie blogs) begin writing about it. It's no wonder that hasn't happened yet; the brand has only been marketed for a few months and only in a few states. Someday this product may achieve the recognition needed for inclusion in an international encyclopedia - but it isn't there yet. (No offense to the liqueur, it sounds delicious.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Ali (engineer)[edit]

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

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio. Ohc ^¡digame! 03:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately I can't find anything here that makes him notable. The only things which might have are not actually sourced. For example there is a claim that he received an NSF award, but the source link is just to nsf.gov and I cannot find any record of it. Likewise the ASCE "Millennium Challenge" award is cited with a link to asce.org, and I only found it referred to in a book he authored and on his CV. Furthermore from what I read here:[1] it appears that the prize was awarded to projects, not individuals. That's not to say that these claims are false but the awards probably aren't sufficiently notable for WP:SCHOLAR. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I see that's he's a Fellow of ASCE, but several of the sources are dead links or merely passing mentions. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply no significant coverage. I'm a fellow in the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists and I assure you that I'm not notable either. J04n(talk page) 00:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:NOTEBLP. lacks significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanpayment[edit]

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

Non-nontable company. Can't find coverage in sources. Stickee (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes company notability threshold. In depth coverage here,here and here. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company, covered by a number of third party sources. More sources can be discovered through baidu, a Chinese search engine. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 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 23:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist for this article. I'm not able to find many in English, but sources in non-English languages are perfectly valid. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 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 redirect to List of typefaces#Sans-serif. Rational for a redirect is compelling but also consensus that the material here is unsourced so deleting prior to redirect.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbrooke (typeface)[edit]

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

This is a self-promo article of a non-notable font. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 11 September, 2014; 04:07 04:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources are download sites and a blog, not RS. A search turned up no RS coverage of this font.Dialectric (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see lack of many independent sources (with a couple secondary sources included) a threat to this specific article's integrity, verifiability, or accuracy. As the article subject is also not for sale either, I'm inclined to suggest that we keep it. --Gryllida (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not one of accuracy, but notability. Per WP:GNG, to be included, subjects need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. And per WP:RS and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard download sites are not independent and do not contribute to establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:22, 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 13:27, 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 23:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of typefaces#Sans-serif, cannot find significant coverage sufficient for individual notability. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't even think that it deserves a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of typefaces#Sans-serif. The sources in the article are insufficient to meet WP:GNG so it doesn't justify its own page. However, per WP:BEFORE, we should look for alternatives to deletion and I see no policy reason to delete when a redirect would be just fine. Subjects redirected do not require notability or even merit; what is required is that the redirect should not be harmful and should take the reader somewhere relevant. In this case this would be a valid redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:46, 5 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 Soft Delete. J04n(talk page) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Girls (2015 film)[edit]

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

this film is not notable, most all references are referring to video "Creepers on the Bridge" which is notable BOVINEBOY2008 14:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 14:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Production is still seeking funds to crew up and filming has not yet begun. WP:NFF is failed. Userfy upon request. Allow return only when released and only if it gets coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:25, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 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. No concensus to delete after two relistings. Although multiple exhibitions at major galleries confer notability per WP:ARTIST, difficulties with identifying specific sources make this moot. Closed as WP:NOQUORUM. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Zhaohui[edit]

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

Does this meet WP:ARTIST? I'm not sure. Listed references seem either press releases from galleries or to auction houses. Article itself reads more like original research, interpretation, description of his work rather than how/why important to an encyclopedia. Notability tag has been slapped on page since 2008. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Saatchi Gallery page is a relatively strong link, though it would be better if supported by some critical assessment of the subject's exhibited work there. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment There is like at least four different people under that exact Chinese-script name, both male and female, and even including a convicted babysitter (which is not the artist by the way). [2] 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 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. J04n(talk page) 01:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Development and Enterprise[edit]

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

Corp article depending on its own web as only source of information. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This think tank seems to have received coverage from multiple reliable sources. A search found all this from just the past few weeks: [3] --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with MelanieN, there are plenty of sources to establish notability and develop a nice article.I am One of Many (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Elias[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Elias is no different than any other backroom staff member at a club. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E - "Controversy leaving Southampton". All coverage is routine. JMHamo (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played/ managed in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. His "Controversy leaving Southampton" isn't notable either. IJA (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a "fully professional" league player. Hence fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:51, 28 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. Controversies noted seems inherently non-notable, this is a routine backroom member of staff in a role that inherently does not garner widespread media coverage in and of itself. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 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. → Call me Hahc21 04:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Tha Rapper[edit]

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

Does not quite meet notability-also notice one of the contributors shares the same name. Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful before you talk, my real name is Manuel John Nichols Gardner, which stands for Mjnichols. --Mjnichols (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I was not talking about you but one of the contributors is named King Tha Rapper, which making info about yourself on pages is a big no. Wgolf (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Just A Fan Of King Tha Rapper So named My screen name after him. (KingThaRapper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencevalle (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Is The Person Named Kingtharapper My Real Name Is Lawrence Valle. Please Do Not Punish My Favorite Rapper Because Of My Negligence Of Making A Account With That Name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencevalle (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and it is no doubt just a coincidenced that KTR' real name is also Valle. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No where near meets any Wikipedia notability criteria for living persons, let alone MUSICBIO. Perhaps in the future, like in 10 years time when a permanent and documentable music career has been established. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that this person is notable; there are only about 28 Google hits for the name, and most of them are social networking sites. Sorry, King, but you're not yet notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Give it a few more years, and you'll be there. There's no need to rush into things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't even begin to scrape the notability criteria, and I can find no suitable reliable sources regarding this person. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant self promotion, no independent sources IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI also. Wgolf (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't made it yet. Might some day - but we don't allow articles in advance. Peridon (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. Along with the reasons already mentioned there are WP:COI and WPSELFPROMOTION problems. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources and fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Mex Restaurants[edit]

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

Page is clearly an advert and does not contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, there are no links to a few of the company's restaurants (which have existing articles on Wikipedia), but instead links to the restaurant websites. There is nothing here that cannot be discussed on the Acapulco Mexican Restaurant and Cantina article, as it was the original restaurant in the company. ip.address.conflict (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Most of the text is copied verbatim from http://realmexrestaurants.com/ Pburka (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The copied text has been removed. Pburka (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe even speedy as db-promo. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major company with profiles at Business Week [4] and Hoover's [5], and plenty of news coverage from Reliable Sources.[6] [7] [8] If the result is "keep" I will undertake a rewrite to make this into a proper, sourced article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the list of restaurants, since that was a bit spammy. I added two in-depth and independent reliable sources. There are more sources. I am One of Many (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Hammer[edit]

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

Effectively unreferenced BLP of an author. No secondary sources found to indicate notability of the author nor his publications. Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Executive editor of the journal Numen (WP:PROF #8). His work seems pretty widely referenced in books related to epistemology and New Age religions. I'll see if I can add some of those in later. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being editor-in-chief of a notable journal satisfies WP:PROF. Of course, that moves the question to whether Numen is notable, but I just checked its homepage and see enough to satisfy WP:NJournals (will update the Numen article later). --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 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 redirect to Red (American band). → Call me Hahc21 04:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release the Panic: Recalibrated[edit]

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

Remix album. Referenced material could probably be merged into the main album article but the remix doesn't appear to be notable (WP:NALBUM). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 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 procedural close. Comments and !votes from this discussion have been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (diff1, diff2). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynching of the Frenches of Warsaw[edit]

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

Procedural close Had the nomination been provided the time, more than 36 minutes, to have the research that would have prepared the community for a deletion discussion, it would reflect the edit comment in the first and only edit made before nomination, "changed title from Lynchings to Lynching", and rather than WP:BITE the new editor, would have provided to the new editor the technique for moving an article from one title to another. Since this article is already at AfD with the older "Lynchings" title, a 2nd AfD is confounding. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have undone the redirect of the original article and asked for the cut and paste copy (this article) to be speedy deleted since all edit history was lost. Meters (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All deletion discussions from this AFD have now been copied to the original AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw and deleted from this AFD. Meters (talk) 06:40, 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. Agree with MelanieN's assertion that CRIME is and should be a high standard. This discussion, however, shows that this standard has been met. J04n(talk page) 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Allen Chapman[edit]

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

I am pretty sure this doesn't pass WP:CRIME, and being the "last person executed by the State of Kentucky" isn't a point of notability. Sourced or not, it makes a lot of claims about people who may still be living. If anything, it would be in an article about the crime itself, but I don't see the crime as so extraordinary that it warrants its own article either. Dennis 19:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable. I do not see where Dennis requested this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Kentucky to be. He hasn't, and standards should be consistent across the board. Wikipedia upheld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Kentucky as passing, and therefore, this page should be upheld by the same notability standards. Why has Dennis has not requested the other page to be deleted? He needs to request it to be deleted, if he has consistent standards, or give an explanation how one passes and the other doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't the case. Please see WP:WAX. The fact that one article needs deleting doesn't justify keeping another. And in this case, having him on a list of people who were executed isn't the same thing as having a full blown article on him with details that include living people. Read WP:CRIME for an idea. Dennis 19:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no consistency with you. Within minutes, Dennis pushed for two of my recently published pages to be deleted, and there just wasn't enough time to have read both of them, in the time he took to request it's deletion. On the other page, Dennis suggested that one of my citations wasn't in the book, when it was there, I had to republish it again, so he could see it clearer, so this guy is just throwing out any ole random accusation, hoping something will stick. The dialogue on the talk page shouldn't be longer than the main article. We would have served all of our time had we gathered together, and said, what shall we do? Instead, I'm defending that a person who savagely murdered, showing the brutality of everyday man, who also was put to death by the government, which isn't acceptable in some civilized parts of the world, is notable. Both elements are notable, and even moreso together. Of course it's notable. That's why wikipedia has already noted it in other pages. Human life is also precious, and that's notable too, though I believe policy disagrees with me on that point. But all other points, I'm on point with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles#Capital_cases Capital cases "In the United States, most modern capital murder cases (those resulting in a death sentence) are notable. The process of appeals following a crime is lengthy, and the American mass media covers these cases so much over a long period of time, that notability guidelines are likely to be met. Still, articles should be titled "murder of [victim]" as long as the involvement is a one-event perpetrator and a one-event victim." Sarahrosemc (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts) Executed Criminals in the United States. "I have forwarded the position since 2005 when originally challenged on Dobie Gillis Williams that everyone executed individual in the United States since reinstatement is noteworthy for inclusion in WP. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. There are also usually numerous articles that over the span of years as the the convict's appeal and pardon applications are exhausted. These cases also have numerous independent reliable sources of information for a WP article due to the intense media coverage and also from the large of amount of public domain information contained in the opinion of the appellate courts. As I recently said in the current AfD ""Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed." This appears to the appropiate page to attempt to form a consensus on this issue. Reading WP:N/CA does not provide any guidance on post-reinstatement executed murderers in the United States. To be clear, there has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976." Sarahrosemc (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would do better if you spoke less about your opinion of me and my actions, and about other articles, and focused on this article and the exact criteria on notability it meets. It doesn't matter if there have been 1 billion executions, the article is about one person, not executions in general. Dennis 2¢ 02:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to cover WP:GNG. That there are plenty of executions in the uS are no argument for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:CRIME, being covered in detail in works such as this Andrew (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have a high standard of inclusion at WP:CRIME and this perpetrator doesn't reach it, nor does the crime he was convicted of. There was some local coverage of the trial, crime, and execution, and even a little national coverage from USA Today. But truly notable criminals get TV shows about them, or books written about them (actual books, not four pages in a book about lots of criminals), or saturation national coverage at some points in their arrest and trial. That was not the case with this guy. In any case, if the article is kept, it needs to be trimmed by at least 50%. All that minute-by-minute detail about his execution: delete. All those one-sentence-paragraphs detailing every step of the appears process: trim drastically. And for heaven's sake, include the reason for the one thing you are claiming he was notable for: WHY was he the last person executed in Kentucky? --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallatin County is a small town rural community, so no doubt, a heinous event such as this, is a town that's still reeling from it's effects. To claim that this is absolutely not notable is ridiculous. It passes all necessary guidelines for Wikipedia's standards. High standards is fine, but impossible standards is not. And if the government executed 1 Billion executions, that would also be notable. Seriously? The government murdering over 1 Billion executions isn't notable to Mr. 2 Cents? Please. Come off it. 2 Cents also needs to take his own advice. Stick to the arguments. Also, consistency means something. That's why Wikipedia has standards. For consistency's sake.

About the living, I have nothing by endless sympathy for them. And I'm glad there were some survivors, because had their not been, then Marco may have gotten away with his crimes. Another great thing about the truth, is that through all of the ugliness, there are moments of bravery, that one can never forget. When 7 year old Chelbi was attacking 30 year old Marco, that's bravery unheard of, from a child. So we shouldn't delete her from history, just because we do not like Marco. While I understand that Wikipedia's standards would never allow for a Chelbi Sharon page to be put up, this is one way for her life to keep on surviving, and to have meaning. And for the surviving, to go through such horrible brutality, and to still survive... amazing. To rip the wire off your hands, and to crawl to the neighbor's house, that's amazing. It's shows a great will to live, and to fight back.

A huge part of this case was that since Marco Chapman willingly was put to death, the motive for the crime was never said, which remains a mystery for today. So to ask further questions about this man and the crime, and execution, is to verify that this article is notable, and should still be available for everybody.

Wikipedia has already approved a list of those executed in Kentucky, so therefore, this debate has already been decided in the past. Of those 3 names listed, only Edward Harper Lee doesn't have their own Wikipedia page. Harold McQueen does, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_McQueen,_Jr. His claim to Wikipedia fame was approved because he was “the first criminal executed by the State of Kentucky after the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States in 1976.” This event happened in 1997, and it only has 2 references. But that was enough.

Plus Wikipedia has a page dedicated to those who merely on death row in the USA. What's notable about that? They haven't even been murdered yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_death_row_inmates

Compare Harold McQueen to Marco Chapman, and while the murder, and the execution, are clearly notable to the layperson, it's even more notable because it was the last execution that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has approved. The very last one. Why did he get executed? Read the article.

In the introduction to what is notable and what is not, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) it says merely that “the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. So while there's numerous sources from all across America about Marco, including at least one book I found, on the first page of a google search, just because Marco is popular, that doesn't mean he's notable. So there's 2 major standards for Wikipedia notability. The first one, is that Marco Chapman needs to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", which is a criteria he easily passes.

The second major standard for Wikipedia notability, whereas biographies are concerned, is listed at WP: BASIC, which says that the person “received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”, which is also true. Harold McQueen, a person who was not the last person executed in Kentucky, only needed 2 sources to pass this criteria. I have 18 sources already listed. There's a Fox News article and a USA Today article in the batch, as well as a book, and many local sources. I even included some court documents, since all executions are guaranteed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. That's national coverage, plus a mention in a book, while not detailed, does offer interesting analysis, and it's the only source that provides some type of explanation for doing what he did. While I believe Linda Tally Smith's assessment in that he was seeking revenge, plus there was crack involved, one can never truly know, especially since Marco was never put on the stand in order to say why he did the things he did. In fact, Marco agreed with what the survivors wanted, and he seemed resigned to his punishment, because he knew he did something very wrong to somebody he loved. The lack of motive leaves lingering questions, whereas a jury trial may have solved this mystery. Whatever Marco's motive was, he took them to the grave.

This article also passes WP:GNG, which says “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” Then it goes on to define those terms, and ends with “If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.” If those who oppose the world knowing about this information would state whether they see a different article out of this, that would be helpful to their Wikipedia colleagues. But the original point is still valid. This man has received plenty of coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. All of the sources are independent, which means this article is fine as a “stand alone article”.

This article passes WP:CRIME because the “historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.” So, inconclusion, the notability of this article is covered by WP:CRIME WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for both, 1) this event being “worthy of notice”, and because of the many secondary independent sources that it covers, and; 2) There's 18 sources, including a Fox News article, a USA Today article (national coverage), as well as a book, court documents, and numerous local sources. Sarahrosemc (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for the article to pass WP:GNG. I did a search on HighBeam and had 67 hits, most of the were AP articles and a couple of Washington Post articles and various other newspapers. He only has to meet one of two criteria in WP:PERPETRATOR and he appears to meet both. I am One of Many (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 14:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves[edit]

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

~~A book that could be just redirected to the author IMO, unless if there is anything anyone can find to say otherwise. Wgolf (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)~~Withdrawn[reply]

Keep I think I have found some things to say otherwise, namely the following 4 reliable sources: [9] [10] [11] [12] Jinkinson talk to me 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that book reviews from major publications like the NYT are sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Okay thank you, I was unsure about this (upon Googling for some reason I got tons of different results containing these words) And well it needed to be wikified it seems! Thanks again! Wgolf (talk) 01:02, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cynicus[edit]

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

~~Biography of a living person with claims not supported, validated and verified with references to reliable sources.Wikicology (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Keep. The subject of the article has been dead 70 years and so per WP:BDP, WP:BLP does not apply. The article does need references but the lack thereof is not a reason to delete this article. Ca2james (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Speedy Withdraw. Thank you Ca2james. There was a missed up. I hereby withdraw the nomination to Speedy Keep.Wikicology (talk) 17:29, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algorates[edit]

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

Organisation is non-notable. Only sources are press releases, which make dubious claims about the company which, coincidentally, isn't registered in the UK despite it claiming to be a limited company. Bbosh (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Algorates is described by multiple media sources including Fox News, the International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/high-frequency-trading-wall-street-rigged-1442734) and the Wall Street Journal as one of the first to employ HFT (High Frequency Trading) and Algotrading in the market, and is therefore clearly notable. It is a subsidiary of Algo Capital in the United Kingdom which is regulated as a financial services company by the FCA in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffB7211 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 October 2014‎ — JeffB7211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That source gives the company only a trivial mention. Doesn't qualify for assessing notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Being "one of the first" is not an assertion of significance as required to avoid speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. The fact that all the sources are either press releases or directory listings fits the typical format of a publicity piece masquerading as an article, qualifying it for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I could also justify this on numbers but there's more than that. In particular, I found Takeaway's argument, which was based on NGEO, a bit stronger in view of the signficant deference we give to geographic places not only in WP:NGEO, but also based on the the mention of "gazetteer' in our Five Pillars. While the Pillars' formal status might appear to be that of an essay, their actual support extends beyond the usual meaning of "essay", our measured consensus describes them as something else, not an essay, guideline nor policy. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central German Metropolitan Region[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, the policy of notability. The region is neither an administrative unit, nor a useful geographical description.
There is no well-defined metropolitan area and there seems to be some confusion about which cities are in it and which are not.
There is a website http://www.region-mitteldeutschland.com/en/member-cities/ which seems to be a marketing page, presumably sponsored by the participating cities, who get to decide which cities are in it and which not. The website says there are 11 cities and includes Dresden whereas this page says there are 7 and excludes Dresden (yet includes a picture of Dresden).
A search in Google Books returns two results. I am aware this page was originally Saxon Triangle so I checked for that on Google Books - that returned 30+ results but most of them referred to a Saxon Triangle in Romania or the Anglo-Saxon Triangle.
At least the Saxon Triangle, even if it wasn't a metropolitan area, was a well-defined area as Leipzig-Dresden-Chemnitz whereas the CGMR seems to be remarkably ill-defined - check out the differences between the maps on this page and its German equivalent.
If there was a page about Leipzig Larger Urban Zone, then I would be in favour of a merge as that is what this page seems to be describing, but in the absence of such a page I would suggest deletion instead of ill-informed un-encyclopedic content. Mtmoore321 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Reading the nominator's rationale, it is fairly clear that their WP:BEFORE did not include reading the German Wikipedia article or looking for German sources - a distinct omission when considering a German topic. My German is fairly rudimentary, but even so I can understand the Geschichte (History) section of the German article well enough to understand that the nominator's complaints about contradictions and the topic not being well-defined instead represent a situation where a nationally-supported regional development initiative has partly collapsed, with four of the eleven participating cities pulling out and the remaining seven recently relaunching it in a slightly different form - and the article here has only been roughly and incompletely updated. I would, in fact, strongly recommend, at least as a temporary expedient, the insertion in the article here of a translation of the History section of the German Wikipedia article (complete with references) - unfortunately, an attempt to do so myself quickly convinced me that the task is beyond my linguistic abilities. However, what I hope I can do is to replace the current out of date map here with the currently accurate one in the German article. So far as sources go, searching under the German name for the region - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - produces far more sources that the two GBooks found in the nominator's search, some of which certainly seem reliable, to the extent that my German allows me to judge them. PWilkinson (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the German article and it illustrates why the Central German Metropolitan Region is a nonsense. The Ruhr is a metropolitan region, it's an agglomeration of urban areas that make a geographical feature. See Metropolitan_area#General_definition. Duisburg cannot decide not to be in the Ruhr anymore than Potsdam can pull out of the Berlin metropolitan region. A metropolitan region made up of cities that flit in and out like butterflies is not a metropolitan region.
  I also checked out some of the German results for the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland - there were some books published by Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland and some references from Universities in e.g. Halle which also happens to be in the same region. So this loose affiliation of regional towns and cities that is not really a metropolitan region is of local interest only and thereby fails notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(local_interests)/failed
  I also think it should be deleted in the German Wikipedia but the bar for notability is lower there and every little Rundling of ten houses gets its own Wikipedia page so I know I'd be wasting my time.Mtmoore321 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Munich metropolitan region has a better case to be called a metropolitan region but it also lacks notability and the page was deleted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munich_Metropolitan_Region&action=edit&redlink=1

Chandler321 (talk) 15:32, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this region is an officially recognized region, see de:Metropolregion#Liste_der_Metropolregionen_in_Deutschland. OK, it's not very successful or popular, compared to other regions. But that's irrelevant - it's mentioned in news (see here [[13]] for a lengthy German article about its problems) and official documents and is certainly notable enough. GermanJoe (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That newspaper article is from a Leipzig newspaper therefore it fails by WP:LOCAL. Most of the books I found about the so-called Metropolregion are either published by the self-styled Metropolregion or else of local interest only. As I understand it, some government department came up with a list of metropolitan regions in 2006, but even the government website doesn't have any mention of the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland since 2010 http://www.bbr.bund.de/BBR/DE/BBR/Anschriften/anschriften_node.html Mtmoore321 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've edited the page. I still don't think it's notable but at least now it's a bit more accurate. Mtmoore321 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - During the "Conference of Ministers for Spatial Planning" in 1997, this region seems to have been designated as a "European metropolitan area" which apparently is not a governmental entity but a regional cooperation between the constituent parts for spatial management and economic development, legally organised as a Eingetragener Verein (which any neighbourhood brass band probably would also be) constituting of the local governments involved. So it's "officially" recognised and endorsed by the German government but not a governmental subdivision. - Takeaway (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MedPage Today[edit]

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

Short reason: fails GNG. Long explanation: I first questioned the legitimacy of its inclusion when User:Blindkijin created it in 2008 with a brand new account as essentially an advertisement for the product. After a contested PROD, the article remained with a bit of cleanup. In my WP:BEFORE search, I found a few hits that might allow it to stay under GNG, but I believe these fall under routine coverage and blog-like entries ([14][15]). Nearly all of the gHits are facebook pages, twitter accounts, the Apple app store, or ads associated with the product itself. Another point worth mentioning is User:Blindkijin's very few, non-MedPage Today edits were adding external links to scientific articles that went directly to MedPage's website, leading me to believe s/he violated WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 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 12:30, 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 15:12, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China to US rail line[edit]

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

This "rail line" is purely speculative - not even proposed at this time, just a concept. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. PROD was removed by author without comment. MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite sources for the concept, no obvious indication that this is something which is likely to happen, therefore probably violates WP:CRYSTAL. One source is simply comparing the Chinese rail infrastructure to the US, and the other source is speculative at best and seems to be blog article masquerading as news. If it seriously happens, we should have an article, but not now. LS1979 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely too speculative. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any journal entries or books about a China-United States rail way. There were many news articles about such a railroad, but they were all about a group of Chinese engineers who announced that they had plans to build one. In light of these facts, I’m going to conclude that this article is essentially a product announcement. According to section 5 of WP:CRYSTAL, we should not have articles about upcoming products when only speculation is available, even when the speculation comes from reliable sources. As I can’t find a good place to merge this article (which is a suggested outcome of the policy), I’m ultimately going to vote to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either as WP:CRYSTAL or speedy as db-hoax. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CRYSTAL. This project is merely speculative fiction at this time. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails CRYSTAL. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:45, 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amilton of Christ[edit]

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

Looks like self-promotion. JMK (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before all the name should be Amilton de Cristo as there seems to exist no sources in favour of that translation. This also taps into that I cannot find sources myself, but digging up precious gems (i.e. articles that can likely be bundled) like O Pentecoste apos a festa de Amilton de Cristo, Pequena Enciclopédia da Biblia Sagrada de Amilton de Cristo, O Verdadeiro Avivamento de Amilton de Cristo. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 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 13:13, 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 15:06, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carmichael (musician)[edit]

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

Apparently the AllMusic reference with over 600 credits makes this subject notable. I'm not so sure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The musician is notable. The references provided are now clear. [16][17]. --Bdboyc (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrawal my Delete and turn it to a Keep, according to references given. --Bdboyc (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References updated (Now correctly lead to citation Website pages. 1. [18] 2. [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chris Carmichael (musician) is a notable musician according to Wikipedia guidelines

In his list of credits at Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/chris-carmichael-mn0000124778/credits) - (a reliable source for verifiability) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources - he is listed as having performed strings on the movie "The Sapphires" He is also listed at IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1674427/ for this film (with arranging credit in addition to the performance) and other films. Article 10 of satisfying the requirements of musical notability states... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) 10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." The Sapphires film has won 20 International awards (notable) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sapphires_(film) Many other examples could be made by accessing the external links provided on the Chris Carmichael (musician) page. ````Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 21:03, 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 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meets another requirement of notability

Article 1 of Criteria for Musicians and ensembles for notability states...

"Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. (note) 3. "The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Chris Carmichael (musician) performed on the soundtrack of Shrek 2 , the highest grossing film of 2004 - reference this press release from Highbeam Music Trades <anofollow" class="external free">http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119739915.html" title="Super-sensitive has supporting role in Shrek.(Products News) | HighBeam Research">Super-sensitive has supporting role in Shrek.(Products News)</a> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're saying that everyone who performed on the soundtrack should have an article? It's self-promotion and doesn't appear in the IMDB article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that the musician satisfies another requirement per Wikipedia's guidelines. Magoobin (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin[reply]
Also, the reference is not "self promotion" - it is promotion from an industry trade about the subject you nominated for deletion. Since your nomination, the Allmusic database has grown by another 10 credits. Now getting very close to 700 recording credits - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/chris-carmichael-mn0000124778/credits Magoobin (talk)! Magoobin
- You're creating a precedent using that trivial entry. It's really not clear what the subject's role in relation to that film's soundtrack is based on that short article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, the subject's role is made very clear - here is the quote from Highbeam: "Chris Carmichael, a long-time Super-Sensitive Musical String Co. endorser, performs a string arrangement of the David Bowie song "Changes," which is played in its entirety in the movie." Whatever your beef is with this musician, all of your protestations do not detract from his notability nor from the fact that he fulfills notability requirements.Magoobin (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin[reply]
    - What does "performs a string arrangement" mean? Was he the viola player? Did he conduct the strings section? Did he play the entire string arrangement on a keyboard that was connected to a synthesizer or sound bank that emulated the sound of a string section? It's not clear to me at least. If you ever state that I have a bias against this subject again I will be forced to report you for making a personal attack. I'm tired of your commentary and suggestion that I have a bias when the material you're offing in weak and I'm simply seeking clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good sir, it is not my intention to quibble with you, rather to help provide you with clarity; and if by doing so you become annoyed, I'm sorry. The answer to your question is provided in one of the subject's provided references and states..."

..."Utilizing modern technology, much of Carmichael’s work is done in his home studio and provided to collaborators via the internet. He has contributed arrangements and performances to several Grammy winning records including Steve Earle’s The Revolution Starts Now and Beautiful Dreamer: The Songs of Stephen Foster...In addition, his arrangements and performances can be heard on songs in major motion pictures such as The Rookie, Shrek II and Role Models as well as throughout Edward Norton’s Down In The Valley. Carmichael’s arrangements and performances have appeared on live television with Tim McGraw and Def Leppard. And he has written orchestral arrangements that have been performed by top tier organizations like the Boston Pops.

- - - - According to Chris, “My primary role these days is as an arranger who happens to be able to flesh out his own arrangements to create authentic sounding large ensembles"...
      - A quick check of his Allmusic credits demonstrates that he performs his arrangements with real instruments - violins, violas and cellos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not entirely sure what question it is that you're answering, but it's not the one I asked. I'll assume that it's my fault. The source provided to support his involvement in the Shrek 2 soundtrack is poor because it doesn't answer the questions. As for http://www.allmusic.com/artist/chris-carmichael-mn0000124778/credits, and the remainder of the AllMusic material, it doesn't demonstrate that he performs his arrangements with real instruments as arrangements are not usually performed by a single musician. Also arrangers don't usually perform the music: they simply arrange the music. It does show individual instrument names in some instances. However the Shrek 2 reference doesn't discuss that at all. It's two sentences long and goes into no detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carmichael (musician) satisfies yet another requirement for notability

Article 1. of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles states…

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries..."

The following newspaper articles (also appearing online) on the subject satisfy the requirement for notability.

http://www.bgamplifier.com/music/chris-carmichael/article_fd64bd42-7042-5b11-9779-0376fbbf6d13.html

http://www.bgamplifier.com/music/revisitations-chris-carmichael/article_eee92e2e-57c5-54ef-9053-ee4d6999e0a6.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They're not clearly independent of the subject. Not sure that bgamplifier.com is sufficiently reliable either. The first is non-trivial, but the second doesn't really reach that mark. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Fair enough, though I see the last two links as clearly independent and non trivial as they are devoted entirely to the subject as opposed to trivial mentions such as these from Pop Matters on the records of others. (Josh Rouse) http://www.popmatters.com/review/rousejosh-nashville/

(Steve Ward) http://www.popmatters.com/review/wardsteve-seeandbeseen/ Magoobin (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin[reply]

- - - Comments about the subject indeed being the performer of his arrangements as per the statements by Walter Görlitz

The following links illustrate that the subject does indeed perform his own arrangements - which I agree with Mr. Görlitz, is highly unusual.

http://www.thebluesblast.com/Archive/BluesBlasts/2009/BluesBlast10_28_09.htm Featured Blues Review 4 of 5 regarding Seth Walker clearly states..."He is backed by a solid group that includes award-winning Canadian guitarist Colin Linden and Kevin McKendree on keyboards. Several tracks feature a string section with all the parts played and arranged by Chris Carmichael."

This, from the magazine No Depression http://archives.nodepression.com/2008/01/jennifer-niceley-luminous/ also sheds some light...

'She draws on the blues for personal strength, and on string sections — meticulously and soulfully arranged and performed by Chris Carmichael — for grace. Those strings turn Bobby Blue Bland’s “Blind Man” into “Blind Woman”, and along with Niceley’s darting and lingering phrasing, transform the song into a drama that both Bobbie Gentry and Nina Simone would recognize."

This article from Pure Music is very detailed about the process... http://www.puremusic.com/swandive6.html

This also explains that the subject arranges, performs and records his work - in this instance for the 6x platinum record "Speak Now" by Taylor Swift... http://m.bgamplifier.com/music/taylor-swift-album-features-local-talent-chris-carmichael/article_1efadb28-505f-50c9-b3ec-a627aa4c3a28.html?mode=jqm "the track Enchanted, originally slated as the title cut, features Carmichael's arrangment as well as his performance on violins, violas and cellos. In fact, twenty individual instrument tracks he created are featured in the song. Each track was recorded in his Bowling Green studio."

An internet search produced this picture of his instruments in the studio where he is referred to as a "One Man Orchestra". http://twitpic.com/1xwdca Magoobin (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin[reply]

I'm not sure if English is not your first language or if you simply have comprehension problems. I don't care one bit about whether he uses real instruments or sound libraries. The issue is that http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119739915.html, without signing up for a full account, you don't get sufficient context to know anything. Try signing out or using a private/in cognito browsing mode to view the link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Görlitz, that is why I went to the effort of providing more links to help you gain a wider perspective. My comprehension is fine. I find it interesting that you accuse me of "personal attacks" when I clearly did not - yet you find it acceptable to insult me pointedly.Magoobin (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your help but you've missed the point. I don't care about the subject but about that one reference. As for personal attacks, read WP:NPA for full details on what it means in Wikipedia's context. You have implied (or simply stated) at least twice (it depends on how you count the material that you first posted to my talk page and then to several other locations on Wikipedia) that I have some sort of vendetta toward or inordinate concern to the subject, which is unfounded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe the Genesis of all of this was when I added Chris Carmichael (musician) 's credits to a page that you very closely monitor, namely, the Thousand Foot Krutch page (which you undid) with the comment, "String arrangers aren't usually listed like this, but thanks." Perhaps you did not realize that he performed the arrangements in addition to arranging and recording them - or perhaps that does not matter to you - but it may matter to someone else. Here is what Trevor McNevan of Thousand Foot Krutch said about working with the subject of this page... http://www.crosswalk.com/11608129/ "We worked with Chris Carmichael on the strings for the first time; he was phenomenal." -T.M. Perhaps you now understand that he is not merely an arranger but the performer and engineer of his arrangements appearing on many of music's finer recordings.
      - I actually saw your edit on The Midsummer Station first, but a string arranger, even if they perform all of the strings, are not session members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I believe that you do an excellent job on Wikipedia and have learned a good deal on proper protocol from you. I would like to thank you for imparting your knowledge. Sincerely, 21:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs)

Glad to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the sources could be improved, due to touring and soundtracks, this musician makes the cut. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Subject meets notability. EBY (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goniec Polski[edit]

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

In three years since the notability template was added, no further information suggesting this newspaper (company) is notable was added. As written, it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies) and Wikipedia:Notability (media). Was deprodded few months ago by User:Adamt with an edit summary "It is very important for the Polish community magazine" which is nothing but WP:ASSERTN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted an article in the Polish language Wikipedia, where articles remained. The magazine is a permanent part of the cultural of the Polish community in the UK. Your next application falls under WP: POINT--Adamt (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the Polish Wikipedia voted to keep the article is irrelevant here. Polish Wikipedia has very loose rules about what is notable and for better and worse is much more inclusionary. There, an unreferenced argument about importance is often enough to result in a keep. English Wikipedia has many more rules and is stricter at observing them. Among others, it's not enough to say that something is important. You have to show that it is notable, and those are not the same thing. See also WP:ASSERTN and WP:VALINFO - I see those arguments often on pl wiki, but on en wiki they are explicitly NOT VALID. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Contrary to appearances in the Polish language Wikipedia is the same :) Shitting me WP (base) though you know you do not know all the local rules :) I will not defend the article, this is your plot and I do not know enough English.--Adamt (talk) 21:43, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 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 15:03, 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 Speedy Keep. #SK (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin MacNeill[edit]

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

I don't believe this person meets our criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. He was convicted of murdering his wife and various other charges, but the coverage of the case was mostly local and timely. He was not nationally notorious and his case does not appear to have had any lasting impact. MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Marie Somers, which is about his wife / victim. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little confused why this is nominated again since it was decided to "keep" earlier. The template is "find sources", there may be issues with article, but lack of sources isn't it. This has been a case that has had national media attention (see Query for national news), like many other articles on Wikipedia Scott Peterson, others I've already mentioned. I personally would have preferred that the article (previous "Michele MacNeil" article} about the victim remained, if one had to go, but that was deleted.

Is there something that I'm missing about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was not decided to "keep" at the earlier discussion; the result was "no consensus". --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good clarification! I was thinking in terms of the net effect.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added: (previous "Michele MacNeil" article} to avoid confusion, since another article has been created about her since then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no objection to merging and redirecting Martin MacNeill and Michele Marie Somers to Murder of Michele MacNeill. The notability of the individuals is dependent upon the event, and the event (i.e. murder and trial, etc.) certainly has received national and some international coverage, and appears to pass the various guidelines in WP:EVENT. Unfortunately, I have no interest in creating or re-working the merge target. - Location (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would be happy to merge and rename the article - and rewrite it to fit the event title.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason for merging or deleting this article. It stands on its own. Per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the result is to keep this material, I certainly agree with User:Location that it should be combined into a single article titled Murder of Michele MacNeill. That is the usual Wikipedia practice, reflecting the understanding that it is the crime itself that is notable - rather than the victim or the perpetrator, whose only claim to notability is their connection to the crime. If this course is chosen, I would recommend that this article, Martin MacNeill, be moved to the new title, because it has a much more significant article history. The contents of the article Michele Marie Somers should then be merged and redirected to the "Murder of" article. A redirect titled Michele MacNeill should also be created. --MelanieN (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think MelanieN is right about merging both articles about husband and wife to the Murder of Michele MacNeill article since neither individual, in themselves, seems to be notable, but what is notable is the horrific act -- which got national attention, and even international attention, and played out over several years. It is the kind of high profile case that could easily be made into a movie, since it was a doctor, using medicine to kill his own wife, with a mistress, numerous children, the religion angle, etc etc. So I am thinking merge the husband and wife articles into a single one about the murder.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I withdraw my "delete" nomination in favor of "keep this article, move it to Murder of Michele MacNeill, and merge the other article into it." We already have a volunteer to carry out the process. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 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 Speedy Keep. #1 SK (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Marie Somers[edit]

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

IMO this subject does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Virtually all the coverage was timely and local. There was not major national interest, coverage was not persistent, and the case does not appear to have had any lasting impact. A tragic story, but not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill (2nd nomination) which is about her husband / convicted killer. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no objection to merging and redirecting Martin MacNeill and Michele Marie Somers to Murder of Michele MacNeill. The notability of the individuals is dependent upon the event, and the event (i.e. murder and trial, etc.) certainly has received national and some international coverage, and appears to pass the various guidelines in WP:EVENT. Unfortunately, I have no interest in creating or re-working the merge target. - Location (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the result is to keep this material, I certainly agree with User:Location that it should be combined into a single article titled Murder of Michele MacNeill. That is the usual Wikipedia practice, reflecting the understanding that it is the crime itself that is notable - rather than the victim or the perpetrator, whose only claim to notability is their connection to the crime. If this course is chosen, I would recommend that the other article, Martin MacNeill, be moved to the new title, because it has a much more significant article history. The contents of this article should then be merged and redirected to the "Murder of" article. A redirect titled Michele MacNeill should also be created. --MelanieN (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into combined article Murder of Michele MacNeill as per MelanieN, based on WP:SINGLEEVENT, with appropriate redirects as suggested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Based on discussion here and at the other AfD, I withdraw my "delete" nomination and change it to "Merge/Redirect to an article called Murder of Michele MacNeill". We already have a volunteer to carry out the process. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 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. Deor (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Alex Spourdalakis[edit]

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

This page amounts to a BLP1E issue regarding the mother of the victim. i.e a person marginally notable for one event. Sorry Jinkinson, the chance of this ending up as a quagmire of some sort are high. I say it goes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event does not, in itself, meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, the article is an extended allegation against the mother, etc. BLP1E is the least of its problems. The murder does not have major news coverage, which means it likely should be deleted instantly. Collect (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article includes RS from Daily Mail, United Press International, CBS This Morning. This has received national and international coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails notability on many levels. Though it did show up on CBS, there's a reason for this. A CBS reporter, who has a strong anti-vaccine message, tried to promote this murder in the web of vaccines/autism/Wakefield. But the fact is, as murders go (and this will sound very cold), it's just one of the 10's of thousands of murders that happen in the USA. We can't have an article about every murder. And the notability of this one is really only known by a small subset of individuals who are involved in the vaccine controversies. 97.93.85.226 (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ This tragedy has received extensive national coverage as pointed out by TonyTheTiger. In looking through the coverage, I noticed that this is very important to autism and disabilities communities. Because of the importance of this murder to these communities, WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply. In sum, it meets WP:GNG and the event has long-term importance for autism and disabilities communities. I am One of Many (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed to delete per WP:BLOWITUP, but I recommend waiting to recreate the article till a few more sources come along clearly establishing it persistence. I am One of Many (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ~~WP:PERP~~ WP:CRIME. Although tragic, this is not a "historic event", it is just a murder, and there are hundreds of murders every day all across the world. There are also severe and obvious BLP problems with the article, that I'm not going to repeat here, which would require urgent removal if the article were kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, this is an event, not a perp, and I have found no evidence of most of the sorts of factors the event notability criteria requires, there may be some geographic scope, but there is no real of lasting effects or persistent coverage, I found a single source which describes this event from the year following the event. I recommend relisting and that discussion participants here consider the factors listed under the event notability criterion.--j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm actually a bit torn on this one. The article as written is terrible and might as well be deleted. However, the murder is notable. The Forbes is an in-depth analysis of the murder and its implications, which demonstrates the notability of the event. It is still cover by Daily Beast and mentioned in the context of related events as might be expected for an event with persistent coverage, for example, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Tribune. So, I'm thinking about changing to delete based on WP:BLOWITUP. I am One of Many (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, which is what the current article is. This is a footnote in the history of dealing with the disabled. I am not convinced by the Forbes article that it is anything more. --Bejnar (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination wihdrawn, no other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mega journal[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, just meaning "big journal". Article is mostly OR and SYNTH. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is indisputably demonstrated by three books discussing the term -- more than enough. Fgnievinski (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the article was nominated for deletion on the grounds of original research or synthesis -- is there any remaining contention in that original regard? Fgnievinski (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources are mostly (although not all) blogs and such. At most, this should be a brief paragraph in the article on academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's still plenty of books and journal article left if blogs are not considered. This stub page is expected to include discussions about its impact on academic publishing. This dispute is about mergism/separatism, not really deletion. And I still don't see how it could be original research or synthesis. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a notable topic. It's a commonly used term for a specific kind of journal, and it's a kind of journal that is growing in importance. I'll try and help improve the article when I have time. - Lawsonstu (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the sources in GBooks and elsewhere, this does seem to satisfy GNG. I don't think it means "big journal". I think it means something like "PLOS ONE and any other journal that is run in the same sort of way". James500 (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, a mega-journal is a low-selectivity journal, not necessarily a large journal (consider, e.g., a failed mega journal). Fgnievinski (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article shows multiple references to chapters/articles in books, RS enough to satisfy notability requirements per WP:GNG. Beyond these, there are conference proceedings, eprints, and blogs, some by respected experts like Jeffrey Beall. IEEE Access happily declares itself a mega journal and a number of big science publishers have come out with their own mega journals. It seems that the academic publishing world has taken note of this phenomenon and this topic is likely to get more notable over time. The term has been used in the sources since at least 2011, so it doesn't fit the WP:NEO mold of an editor or minor player in the field trying to push a neologism. The article itself is carefully, nay defensively, cited. Except for one dubious sentence, I don't see the claimed synthesis or original research, just a summarization of sources. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Based on the above comments (especially Mark viking) I withdraw the nom. There not being any "delete" !votes, I will close this as "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pablito Greco[edit]

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

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

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

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

I do not see any notability of the person. There are many references, but all of them are either self-published, or blogs, or irrelevant Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook fluffy vanity article designed to promote someone who is otherwise, relatively unremarkable. Dennis 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The overall work and activity of this individual has a great educational, artistic, and entrepreneurial value, and the article that I have decided to compile, although being a novice Wikipedia member, has inspired many people of all ages, including me and the dancing community I represent as a member. The article had many structural changes and beautiful corrections from extraordinary Wikipedia editors in the past. I embrace them all and I will embrace much more changes and corrections, but not a deletion. It is a bulky and quite strange point of view. It will be wise enough to propose corrections/changes. Thank you. NickDimou 00:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDimou (talk • contribs)
- Nick we got your email, and the communities of NYC, LA, WA, DC did also. I, carefully, agree. I can't see any Wikipedia policy that have been overridden with the article of Pablito Greco. All I can see is a Renaissance man that creates heavily, has best-selling educational ebooks, and doing the best to promote methods for efficient tutoring and education. Just like Wikipedia does. Value after value. This is what Wikipedia needs. Personal comments for him or his career are VERY inappropriate from old Wikipedia members, which they supposed to have high behavioural standards (role models). Wikipedia has a lot of junk articles, and this is for sure not one of these. I will post here, as many as I can in the near future. I want this article ON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.96.131 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 192.240.96.131 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Canvass Alert According to this diff this AFD has been massively email Canvassed for support. Alsee (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only are there no actually-usable sources cited in the article, the subject seems never to have been covered by any. Fails notability. Ntsimp (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have examined every reference used in the article. They consist of his blogs and other self-published webcontent, several of his self-published e-books, his self-published videos, his self-published business website, an internal link to Wikipedia(!), a number of independent websites that fail to support the referenced claim (and which would be of questionable value even if they did support the claim). The IMDB "movie" listing is a no-budget short video which appears to also be self-produced. thestival.gr, rthess.gr, and dancepress.gr all contain the same thing - a bare mentioned of the name in a listing of a Tango marathon (the same one). metrogreece.gr and einkos.gr just duplicate/link back to ellines.com. I couldn't tell whether the ellines.com bio was self-written, but even if we did assume it was independent and Reliable it would be be the *only* substantive source on the entire page. I'd also like to note that I searched Greek Wikipedia and couldn't find an article on Pablito Greco, Pavlos Mavromatis, or the Greek version Παύλος Μαυρομάτης. (The search did turn up two references to one of his self-published ebooks. I left Greek comments on the talk pages that they were poor sources.)

Even if we assumed this person is Notable, the article is so wildly promotional and lacking in Reliable Sourcing that it would pretty much need a ground-up rewrite anyway. Alsee (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Hello Wikipedia! Please, let me know if I did understand correctly. We are discussing about this article and if it should be deleted. And we're doing that in a public webspace, that it is not so public after all, because all the opinions must express mainly the admins point of view, and not the public's, because if they do then the possibilities of deletion are even more because this is called Canvassing, or something like that. Fix the article from the ground-up, and let the public VIEW AND EDIT this article freely and entirely. This is Wikipedia, isn't it? 149.255.32.229 (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you actually went and read the policies on inclusion, canvassing and such, as this isn't a good page to debate them. For the record, Wikipedia isn't a "public webspace". It is a privately owned website, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. And article content never reflect "admin point of view", they reflect the words of editors, within policy. Admin don't decide content, we are just editors with a few extra tools. It seems your impression of Wikipedia is very different than the reality. Dennis 2¢ 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make better Deleting a Wikipedia article is sad, but it is what it is since there're policies to follow for the Wikipedia system to work. I'm ok with that. I joined on july just to play with this particular article. I will find others, I'm sure. Deleting an article of a person does not make that person less valuable. But still, I would love to make it better and better. Cheers! NewYorkerMe 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkerMe (talk • contribs)
Keep and fix, or else delete Creating this article was very exciting for a Wikipedia's newcomer like me, back then. Not only exciting, but learning how this community works was and is amazingly creative. Thus, I do insist on having a solid article for Pablito Greco in Wikipedia encyclopedia. A very creative artist and entrepreneur, notable for his work. What I propose is, since the admins does not agree to keep this article and fix it, to delete it and save our time/effort and start from the beginning on trying building a firm Wikipedia piece which everybody would be proud to edit. Let's do and embrace that as soon as possible. Love. Nick 01:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDimou (talk • contribs)
Delete—the article is very improperly sourced to be kept. Several of those commenting here express a desire to keep and improve the article, and that's a laudable goal. However, to be kept, the subject needs to be notable, and one of our key metrics for determining that notability, as Wikipedians use the term, is the General Notability Guideline (GNG). The GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." For the following reasons, this burden has not been met by this article, and at this time, deletion is warranted.
- "Significant coverage" means that the sources are about the subject of this article, instead of just mentioning the subject.
- "Significant coverage" also means multiple sources, not just one or two.
- Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. Reputable publishing houses proofread books they publish. Reputable journals submit articles to peer review or another process designed to verify the accuracy of the material. If necessary, these publishers will publish corrections, issue retractions, or even recall printed material as necessary to protect their reputations.
- Sources from blogs hosted on sites like Blogger and Wordpress, as well as postings on Yahoo! Groups or videos on YouTube or Vimeo are not normally considered reliable. If they were published by an expert in the topic, they may be acceptable for use.
- "Independent of the subject" means that the sources cannot be intimately connected to the subject. In this case, Greco Publications would fail that test. That isn't to say that we can't cite some information to sources written by the subject, but

Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division[edit]

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted (G4) by Billinghurst. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zicutake USA Comment[edit]

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

Notability — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already been deleted previously Zicutake, so speedy closing. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Fighting Championship[edit]

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

Short lived, non-notable, unreferenced MMA promotion. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no independent coverage of this promotion, which seems to have only put on two shows before it disappeared. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources demonstrating notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlas Business Journal[edit]

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

Non-notable website with only some very local minor coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This website/news source does not meet the standards for notability to have a Wikipedia article. For the folks who run the website: Not every website is notable. The local coverage article is nice, but that's a normal local public interest piece, as it is cool that young folks have created this venture. If you break some stories and this gets the Atlas profiled by some national publications, you'll make it. But not now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiva Ayurveda[edit]

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

The subject is failing WP:ORG. Even some contents of the article is written in the tone of advertisement. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: On its way to deletion, but let us wait one more week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here ~~are~~ is a ~~couple~~ sources: ~~[20]~~, [21]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: none of your above reference is reliable, please find the reliable one. Thank you! — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: I think these are reliable by the criteria of WP:NEWSORG, but I'll withdraw this claim if you can show evidence to the contrary. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: http://www.apnnews.com/2014/05/12/jiva-ayurveda-launches-four-clinics-in-mumbai/ appears to be advertisement not the news. Please see WP:ORG for more information about the notability criteria for companies. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: Ah, looks like you're right. My bad. It's annoying they disguise ads as articles now. On the other hand the second one looks okay, but I don't have time right now to look into it in depth. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: Alright, I'm not as familiar with Indian media as you probably are and so I have a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff, but there appears to be a fair number of sources for this company:[22]. Much as I hate to give a voice to quackery it does look like some of these articles are not just ads. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: If you are not sure about the Indian Media or newspaper brands its better to take help of WP:INDAFD. Thanks! — CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of adequate coverage in reliable independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shequida[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLPNOTE and specifically WP:ENT 1, 2 and 3. Originally a contestant on America's Got Talent but no coverage of performer outside of television program. Google news search provides no results and standard Google search provides no criteria that meets WP:N/WP:BIO. AldezD (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen her in Cherry Grove, for which she has starred in her own show. She's also performed extensively in New York and other resorts. She's constantly seen in the LGBT circuit parties scene and on charity shows, to the point of being over-exposed. I'll try to find more sources. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Gary Hall is a he; his persona is a she. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added some more cites. I'm not sure they're the most reliable sources, so please check them. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shequida is a pretty famous drag queen in New York. I wish I had more time to edit the article, but I found a couple of sources, including a show of his being profiled in The New York Times and Heeb magazine; Time Out magazine recently cited him as one of the top 10 drag queens in New York. Hope this helps. --David Shankbone 14:49, 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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Guarino[edit]

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

Page on an Italian physicist. On 3 external links can be found in the page, only one works and it confirms that he worked on a new route to non invasive diagnosis in neurodegenerative diseases. Using internet search engines does not appear any evidence of the relevance of his work in physics and/or neurosciences. Even if the page exists also on other 4 Wikis it looks like a multilingual CV only. НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 04:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 04:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 04:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be more of a resume' than an encyclopedia article. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the citation counts from his Google scholar profile show him to be on a good career track, they are still a little too low (for a high-citation field) to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and he also does not appear to pass any of the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes and Teeth[edit]

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

I came across this via speedy and while I deleted an accompanying discography page (that was already summed up in the main article for the most part), this had just enough of an assertion of notability to squeak by speedy standards, as he'd contributed to the sountrack for a notable movie and had released something on a label. However I can't really find anything to show that this artist is particularly noteworthy enough to pass the overall guidelines for notability per WP:ARTIST, so I'm bringing it to AfD. I also want to note that I've blocked the original editor as a potential COI username, but I have no problem with them creating a new account name or account in order to continue contributing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No credible claim of significance: He is “best known” for his contributions to a film where he has no IMDb credit; and neither of his indie labels is important enough to have a Wikipedia article. —teb728 t c 06:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed here, under the soundtrack. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has also been created (and declined) as an Articles for Creation draft here. This would fail submission as a draft article in it's current state, even if it was not a 'speedy decline' as an existing article, as it does not demonstrate notability. Revent^talk 08:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band spam whose original author is a blocked 1-subject (this band) account, suggesting autobiography or COI. getting some music into the soundtrack of one non-notable straight-to-video indy zombie movie doesn't really leap the hurdle.Cramyourspam (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ecker[edit]

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

Ecker is a non-notable former football player. First, he has not played in a regular season game in a professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources so as to pass WP:GNG -- the only significant coverage I found was this. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for a college athlete per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records) or a professional football player per WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL, etc.). While the subject received a large amount of coverage in blogs, fansites, recruiting services, NFL Draft prospect evaluations, etc., and a moderate amount of WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage, significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (i.e. mainstream sports and news publications) was insufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, here is the only example of arguably "significant coverage" regarding the subject I found in a reliable source from the mainstream media: Detroit Free Press (11/17/2005). IMO, one profile of a college football in an in-state newspaper still borders on WP:ROUTINE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, NGRIDIRON, and NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:43, 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 delete. Fails to qualify for speedy delete A7 since being a Hong Kong broadcaster is credible and could be significant if there was significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However, such coverage does not exist to establish notability so delete per consensus. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Chi-ming[edit]

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

Was looking over this a couple weeks ago-he might be notable but I'm not sure-it might also be a inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7 - The person in question has no notability outside of being someone's brother. Notability is not inherited. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-yes I know that (unless if you are the related to the Queen of England :P lol), but it mentioned being a radio host-so I was unsure. Wgolf (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note, when looking for sources, that there are a lot of people with the same name in Chinese script. Baidu Baike notes 3 in the mainland already. zhwp's 鍾志明 writes of a PRC People's Liberation Army general. There is also a Taiwanese university professor. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Also added Find Sources template[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should have been speedy-deleted per A1. STSC (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe should have been speedy deleted. In any case delete due to WP:NOTINHERITED. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 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.