Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 September	30 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I-4 Derby[edit]

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

PROD contested by another user. Article fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only a handful of meetings between the teams. Inconcievable that any genuine rivalry could exist. No indication of GNG per WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above. Lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Tigar[edit]

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

someone who is known for a dating blog AND being one of the most eligible singles! (Granted NYC is very huge and being famous there does mean something-but still this does not quite mean a page is needed) Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 23:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. One short mention in a tabloid is insufficient. Pburka (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the sake of fairness, she's also a regular contributor to Women's Health magazine ([1]) but I don't think that adds much to be honest. We need coverage of her, not coverage by her. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than a mention as being "most eligible", Tigar has yet to actually be the focus of any true in-depth coverage. I can't see where she ultimately passes notability guidelines. Being a writer for a notable magazine can help gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee and being a potentially reliable source yourself (predominantly for the WH articles, I'd assume) would not mean that you pass notability guidelines either. Also, the popularity of her blog doesn't guarantee notability either- it would also make it more likely she'd gain coverage, but again- it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources yet. I'm actually the most eligible single on Wikipedia, but robots don't really date much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Not even if you're a ninja pirate hybrid? Man, the dating scene is so harsh... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79 and NinjaRobotPirate could not find third party sources about her.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Spumuq (talk) 09:32, 6 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gekidō/Just Break the Limit![edit]

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

Not notable. (Has beeen waiting with a notability tag since several years.) Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability tagging for several years mean nothing. It just means that no one is trying to improve the article. Its claim to fame is the use on D.Gray-man and as an advertisement. Originally this came from Articles for Creation, and so 24.214.119.78 is the original author. It is in the Category:Singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of Japan so I assume that that would help it pass WP:MUSIC. There is plenty written in English on the web, but not that I can see in reliable sources. However there is likely to be even more in Japanese. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that it reached #3 on the Oricon Singles Chart: [2]. Here's confirmation that it was certified gold: [3]. Michitaro (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is certified gold (per WP:MUSIC). —innotata 06:50, 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 19:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Yusuf Al-Turki[edit]

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

person lacks major significance David O. Johnson (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) The person lacks major significance ; I think that the primary reason this article was created was because CNN indicated he was the leader of the Al-Nusra Front, a claim which other sources have since contradicted.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep; It seems as though he is a member of the Khorasan Group [4], making him pretty significant. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, David, are you withdrawing your nomination then? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct; I don't know what the formal process is, though. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping Why should I have a User Name? as the only outstanding delete opinion to see if it changes his view on things. If so, this can be closed as withdrawn. Just give him time to respond. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we can't have an article for every member of a terror organization. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is definitely notable. He's not a mere soldier or some lower-ranked terrorist. He's a leader of a notable Islamic extremist group. A simple google search yields 10,000s of results. FYI, be sure to try different spellings of his name, such as Abu Yousuf Al-Turki or Abu Yousef Al-Turki. That'll bring out even more results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's more than enough sources that say he was a leader. But besides that, he's still notable and that's what's important. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can find it now but there was some suggestion at some stage that the "deck of cards" terrorists were all notable enough (at the time) for inclusion. Is this guy at that level? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to have been notable enough to have been deliberately targeted. Notability might also be derived from his significance in training other snipers. Are snipers particularly important here? But it is still just a rather weak keep, I think. Although the other articles exist/don't exist argument is not a valid one, I'd be curious if similar articles do exist, such as for known bomb makers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, more of an WP:OUTCOMES argument than an WP:OTHERSTUFF one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This guy is definitely notable enough to have an article describing him. Sure it may have a lot of problems, but articles issues can and are resolved over time. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:26, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John McSweeney[edit]

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

I am unable to verify any of the claims of notability on this BLP anywhere except the subject's website, or find any coverage at all in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources provided to back up claims. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Double Platinum, a Double Gold, and a Gold certification would certain establish notability if they could be verified. Unfortunately, I could not do so, as above. There is plenty of evidence that John McSweeney is a 7th Degree Black Belt in the International Kempo Karate Association, but presumably that is another John McSweeney, as was the attorney born in 1865 who was one of the best known lawyers in the state of Ohio. I suspect a hoax here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:29, 6 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 delete, per author request. Looks like he saw the writing on the wall. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Umair Bukhari[edit]

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

Not notable. The article appears to be self-written, and the only reference is the subject's company bio (a company that is in itself not notable). ubiquity (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it for speedy deletion a couple days ago for the same reasons, and it was deleted; the author seems to keep re-creating it (this is at least the third time he's done it, judging by all the warnings on his talk page). Cranberry Products (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Pak[edit]

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

There are a lot of sources in the article as it stands, but 90% of them are simply checklists of what Pak has done during his career. The article comes across as slightly promotional ("here are all the things he's done") with very little in the way of significant media coverage or personal information. I cannot at this time determine what makes him stand out from the rest of the graphic designer/developer crowd or makes him notable per Wikipedia's standards. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A designer from Turkey that worked with big brands (check his previous works on http://undream.net). Most of the sources linked are respected/known design magazines of his subject therefore WP:GNG is met and most of his achievements are clearly notable. Possibly, the way the article written is causing a problem; which can be fixed. As a designer who follows design communities up close I can say that this guy one of the main sources of inspiration for many designers in multiple design branches - and one of the current leads of Today's motion design.--Gnihton (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional crap that belongs elsewhere, Gnihton should also stop using WP to promote himself!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to use Wikipedia for promoting. Seqqis (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes you believe that I am the person? Moreover, the content is not promotional at all. I am a designer, I have studied his work as well, and attended a few of his lectures. --Gnihton (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article by WP:SPA per WP:PROMO. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be corrected in the most recent version. --Gnihton (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would love the judgement to be fair. All of the promotional looking stuff was removed or corrected by an experienced member. Right now there is nothing I can do to make the negative commenters happy however if you think fair you will also agree with me that the article deserves to stay, specially compared to many of the stuff with a lot less content and notability. --Gnihton (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gnihton, as I mentioned to you in IRC, all that the article needs is a few more references that don't simply list Pak on a credits page and discuss him as an artist. At the moment there is one (maybe two at a stretch), which isn't really enough to make him notable per Wikipedia's standards, and I can't find any more (or I'd add them myself). Primefac (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Keep~~ Added more information upon request by Primefac that are more than just credits, corrected and replaced some of the references to reflect the same, added MAD event and a few more. How does it look now? --Gnihton (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for AfD nomination should be gone, if not, minimized by the changes until now. Have a look. Also keep in mind that some of the sources look like "front page" with no relation to the person of interest (for instance http://www.madinspain.com/) - do not get tricked by this, just scroll down a bit and you will see big chunks of data about the person of interest. Sadly, single page design is hype right now so it's not possible to link the exact (scroll) location of the single-page-design website to show the perfect reference. Should not be a problem though, since the sources are fitting to WP:GNG. --Gnihton (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quantity does not equal quality. These are just not the kind of facts and citations that demonstrate a designer's notability. The interview with Awwwards is a good example. The brief header says he is a "multi-award winning designer" but the only awards they mention are the 2010 and 2012 Vimeo Awards, for which he was short-listed, but which he did not win. see also the web site touted by the author http://www.madinspain.com/ which has four sentences taken from a press release or resume, but without any solid facts, all hype. So it doesn't really matter that the site has no indicia of reliability. Much of the coverage cited in the article is incidental. Some are just images. It is possible that he might pass WP:NOTEBLP if good solid coverage in reliable independent secondary sources could be found, but this article does not do that. It depends on primary sources, mentions, related sources and unreliable sources. Currently it does not pass the guideline for creative individuals. --Bejnar (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bejnar really hit it on the nose. Unfortunatley if I'm running a google news search or a newspaper search and I can't find diddly squat, chances are that there's not significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. While you may be plenty of sources where he's been mentioned, they seem to be minor mentions and sourcing. Now, granted, Notability isn't temporary, but check the link Benjar gave above on our guideline for creative individuals Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bejnar you have a lot of valid points on what you write, however I find your comment quite misleading in terms of presented data. For instance I'm not sure how you didn't saw the huge portion in http://www.madinspain.com/ - featuring the POI as one of the presenters of the event. Anyway, there is a lot of information floating around the web, I will gather them and keep improving the article. One of my problems is that this person is mentioned/interviewed/featured in a lot of books or magazines (which I have some of them physically) however I can't find any digital versions of those sources, which makes it impossible for me to cite them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnihton (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the section that listed him as one of the thirteen presenters, it was not huge. Those were the five sentences that contained only conclusions, no facts, and read as "hype". That is not what we mean by substantive. --Bejnar (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gnihton, there is an option for citing books in the "Cite" dropdown menu (select "Cite" when you are editing, then chose "cite book" from the "Templates" dropdown menu). The cite helper gives an ISBN lookup (meaning you don't have to enter all the info in manually). Primefac (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, thanks for the info, but how will it be proven that the stuff I cite are actually in the book(s)? --Gnihton (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding terribly sarcastic: libraries still exist. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough --Gnihton (talk) 14:00, 7 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anjada Gandu (2014 film)[edit]

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

No indication at all of notability; article is without references. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and through WP:INDAFD: Anjada Gandu

Keep released film with reviews. Sad that the author created it without sources, but they ARE available and that shows a meeting of WP:NF. I very quickly found Times of India Banmgalore Mirror Perhaps the nominator might take a look at WP:NRVE and withdraw? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As reported to nominator on his talk page.... with my having found plenty of useful sources, I took the 204 characters stub first nominated and turned it into a decent 3078 characters start class article... an easy 15x expansion. Had WP:BEFORE been used and WP:NRVE followed, I do not think this AFD would have been created in the first place. That being said, and even with AFD not intended to force improvements, notability is now a lock. DYK anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the excellent work (once again) from Michael. MichaelQSchmidt - drop me a note on my talkpage as to which bit you'd like as the hook and I'll do the DYK too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per excellent work from MichaelQSchmidt.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film article meets the notability guidelines, has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nice work from MichaelQSchmidt. Much needed and appreciated.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent sourcing and article improvement by Michael Schmidt. Kudos. Arunram (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guce (rapper)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a rapper whose only substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC is an album that peaked #94 on the Billboard hip hop charts. That certainly satisfies the letter of NMUSIC #2, but even NMUSIC still requires the article to be properly sourced — it does not entitle anybody to keep a Wikipedia article that's this badly sourced just because they only barely squeak over one item on its checklist. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if real, properly reliable sourcing can be added to salvage the article with, but he's not entitled to keep an article on here if this is the best he can do for sourcing. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guce, which was about the same person — the claim of notability and the quality of sourcing aren't significantly better here than they were there, but the article is still different enough from the original to not qualify for CSD G4.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable rapper with no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey2010 --Bejnar (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ankaferd BloodStopper . – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Cahit Firat[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. There are two sentences about him in an independent source (Today's Zalman). The coverage is about Ankaferd BloodStopper and any information here is either already covered in that article, or should be merged into it. RexxS (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not independently notable. Seaphoto^Talk 16:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this title and redirect it to Ankaferd BloodStopper but as Hüseyin Cahit Fırat as that is the correct name. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to Ankaferd BloodStopper is sensible, but remember that many users searching don't have the requisite character set to make use of the redirect you suggest. I note that you've also put forward Hūseyin Cahit Fırat as the correct diacritic use. Any and all of these should be redirects. Redirects are very cheap on resources and are a big help when searching on our site. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know anything about this subject. But according to the sources which seem reliable, the subject is notable. I also don't think that the article is mergable to Ankaferd BloodStopper; for the article is a biography-article and the later is about a product. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are set out in Talk:Hüseyin Cahit Firat. They are: a newspaper article about ABS which devotes two sentences to Firat; his self-published profile on ResearchGate; the self-published website for ABS; a case study about ABS; an experimental study about ABS; and a letter to a journal about using ABS for GI bleeding. The last three say nothing at all about Firat. How does that amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for Firat?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know that much about this subject either, but he does seem to have co-authored a few academic papers here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiguy12 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ankaferd BloodStopper, most of the sources are about that. Spumuq (talk) 09:45, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Bujagic[edit]

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

Recreation of an article mere hours after it was deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 29 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. IJA (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and obviously fails WP:NFOOTBALL.Wikicology (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes in 2015[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Also even the summary stats for last year are going to change before the end of this year, so it just adds more work to keep this future stub updated. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't technically a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because it's a known fact that there will be earthquakes in 2015. But WP:TOOSOON definitely applies — for the remaining three months of 2014, this can only serve as an empty placeholder with no genuinely substantive content (i.e. no actual earthquakes to actually list). Delete for now, and recreate no earlier than one week before January 1, 2015. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I agree with the above I personally see no point in deleting something that'll only be recreated in 3 months time (or earlier) .... To save a lot of fuss I say keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- so, you are going to update the previous year stats table in the article each time you update Earthquakes in 2014? that seems like more fuss than recreation in three months. Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and that this is exactly why we avoid creating articles on that basis. We assume there will be earthquakes, scientific evidence suggests that there will be earthquakes and we can use our psychic powers (what, you don't have those?) to deduce that there will be earthquakes. But even then, there's no guarantee any of them will be notable and while the year does start on 1 January, it might be April until somewhere has an earthquake notable enough for inclusion on the list. Just because it has happened before, doesn't mean it will happen again. 31 December 2014 might signal the start of the most tectonically stable period in Earth's history. In fact, I might create an article suggesting exactly that... no... wait. See where I'm going? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the logic of @Bearcat above. I'm just not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems no different than creating an article on the 2040 Congressional elections or 2050 Olympics. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not an actual article, is just helping somebody increase their count of articles-created. Spumuq (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear-cut violation of WP:CRYSTAL. While there will almost certainly be earthquakes in 2015, there are not any reliable sources about them in the present. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:21, 6 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailpile[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.~~ JMHamo (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is one of the most well-known post-Snowden efforts to build a secure e-mail client. A cursory search turns up several independent sources covering it:

TechDirt, Insanity: PayPal Freezes Mailpile's Account, Demands Excessive Info To Get Access, 5 September 2013
Ars Technica, Mailpile enters beta—It’s like Gmail, but you run it on your own computer, 15 September 2014
Wired, Open Sourcers Pitch Secure Email in Dark Age of PRISM, 26 August 2013
TechCrunch, Mailpile Is A Pro-Privacy, Open Source Webmail Project That’s Raised ~$100,000 On Indiegogo, 20 August 2013
BoingBoing, Mailpile: crowdfunding a secure, private email client/cloud service, 4 August 2013

It is also mentioned in numerous other articles in a cursory way that clearly implies that it is well-known enough to be on the "short list" of people trying to solve this problem. This is a pretty obvious keep. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other outstanding "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Gintis[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:PROF, or even WP:GNG. The only claim I can see that might pass the professor test is the editorial role on Journal of Economic Behaviour..., but even then he's listed as "an" editor rather than the head of the editorial staff. I'm open to withdrawing this if notability can be demonstrated, but at present, it reads like a resume, not the biography of a notable academic. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has an h-index of 66 [5], which seems like it is high enough to pass WP:PROF criterion 1 easily. I'm not 100% sure, though. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Changing Face of Economics: Conversations with Cutting Edge Economists (my underlining) published by University of Michigan Press (already a reference in the article) has a 30 page interview with him, and the title of the book is rather self explanatory. There's an entire book devoted to his and Samuel Bowles's work, Bowles and Gintis Revisited: Correspondence and Contradiction in Educational Theory, published by Routledge. Note the number of reviews of his work in peer-reviewed journals on Jstor [6]. See also the lengthy review of Gintis's 2009 book, The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences, in American Scientist [7]. The Bowles and Gintis book, Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life, has had 44 editions in 5 languages between 1976 and 2011 and over 8700 citations and Gingtis himself has an H-index of 66 on Google Scholar wnich is quite high. [8]. See also the total library holdings of his works at WorldCat [9] and reviews in the New York Times of two of his books: [10], [11] I'll also note in passing that Herbert Gintis has over 30 incoming links on Wikipedia (excluding list articles) [12]. The list of publications currently in the article needs to be pruned to include only the most influential and widely reviewed works and referenced to reviews. But I would say he is is definitely notable as an academic. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massive citation counts on Google scholar [13] (including six publications with four-digit citation counts; many academics would be happy with that many three-digit citation counts) show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, in addition to the very convincing evidence for both notability and nontrivial coverage given above by Voceditenore. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject obviously meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:PROF. The fact that enough references to reliable sources are not present in the article has not nullify its notability, hence WP:BEFORE its very important. Wikicology (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Per the arguments above, I withdraw the nomination. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Costel Vodiţă[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator because he has played in the Romanian Liga II. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal mistresses of Bohemia[edit]

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

Also nominating similar related article:

There was never any such position as a "royal mistress of Bohemia", so it's not surprising that the table is half-empty, half-inaccurate. Concubines are not mistresses, and the article would hardly meet notability criteria more than the List of Bohemian queens' favourite dishes. Not everything "royal" deserves an article or a list. One can try to put up with articles such as List of consorts of Nevers, but there has to be a limit somewhere. I repeat, this was not an office. It had no "term started date" and no "term ended date". Being a mistress meant many different things to many different couples. Some were one-night adventures that resulted in a child, some were lifetime partners and influential confidantes. Some were not sexual, and some were purely sexual. It makes no sense to put all of these women into the same basket and treat them as office-holders. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article is only random bunch of facts and errors. For example Agnes of Kuenring and Palcerik was same person, Božena (Křesinová) was second wife, not mistress, Katharina Schratt was only platonic friend, Philip Lang was hardly mistress, because he was man. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information! --Yopie (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jesus, what a mess! Half of the "facts" aren't verifiable and seem like guesswork but they are the basis on which this has been created. Much of this seems based on rumour or conjecture. Though the subjects are all long dead, we still don't publish gossip. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any way to include List of royal mistresses of Hungary in this discussion? Half the table is identical to this one, and the other half is equally bad. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for the reference of the closing admin, my "delete" opinion applies equally to that list also; delete both. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both – fails core policies including WP:V. C 679 07:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete both - per the nom and Stalwart111 Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox[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)

The previous AfD was closed as delete, after a fairly heated debate and subsequent deletion review. The article has been recently recreated, following the release this week of a documentary miniseries [14] about the subject of the article. This additional coverage could address the primary policy-based deletion argument of WP:BLP1E. As nominator, my !vote at this time is neutral. If the result of this discussion is keep, I request that the previous article be temporarily restored as a basis for expanding the new article. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Still BLP1E. This documentary still doesn't push the subject over the threshold, however I agree with nominator that if kept, the original article should be restored to assist rebuilding this article.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Now about as notable as any other actress that participates in this genre. Being ejaculated upon makes no difference.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:38, 18 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, Sandstein 12:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: After this discussion was closed as "speedy delete", a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 21 resulted in the decision to reopen and relist this discussion, which is hereby done. Sandstein 12:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculously easy speedy strong keep Tons of sources discussing her in depth, many of which are not just about her getting doxxed, but about other aspects of her life and career.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the online reality show has not been proven notable, and the rest of the coverage is pretty typical one event stuff. I would change my mind if she meets the criteria for adult actress notability or if the show becomes noteworthy. Seaphoto^Talk 16:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seaphoto: there is no requirement in WP:BASIC for the sources themselves to be notable. VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't referring to the quality of the source, but the online show she will be hosting. It's notability is germane to the discussion. Seaphoto^Talk 01:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, should this be kept, which is going to be a "who shows up, who closes it" toss-up because the subject matter deals with SEX, please note I preserved the old version outside wikipedia here[15] for expansion purposes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hard to see any argument remaining for WP:BLP1E. Coverage includes multiple and unrelated events (the original outing, subsequent media appearances, selection as reality show host, strip club tour, release of documentary miniseries, etc.). Gaijin42 provides ample sources. Knox is a public figure for multiple reasons, and shows no signs of "otherwise remaining...a low-profile individual." WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. MA101Wiki (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and noting that editors with only 1 edit may find their !votes discounted more than toys at Wal-Mart <g>. No sign of any actual enduring notability at all, which means that maybe this could be merged into "unusual jobs of undergraduates" but the person is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Collect (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect How many months of sustained coverage do you think is a sign of enduring notability? Did you look at the list of sources above? If that doesn't pass WP:GNG (not to mention crushing WP:PORNBIO #3) what percentage of wikipedia BLPs do you think could survive that burden?Gaijin42 (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect Per WP:DNB, "While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they "gain more experience." Please point "editors with only 1 edit" toward the policies they are violating, rather than suggesting that their contributions are less relevant than those of more established users. MA101Wiki (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a "new user" and one whose first-ever edit is on an AfD discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a better way to phrase this would be "Editors that have signed up with the sole purpose of posting in this AfD need to be aware that they can be seen as single purpose accounts and as such, will make sure to cite relevant policies. Editors that have made few or no edits outside of this topic and that appear to be making arguments that would fall within WP:NOT and/or is based more upon a personal opinion/viewpoint may be considered less helpful to the discussion and potentially considered to have very little impact on the overall consensus. Please remember that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and that the final decision will be made based upon the arguments posed and whether or not they are seen to fall within the applicable guidelines." That's a little lengthy, but it does somewhat sum up the SPA essay and NOTAVOTE in a more diplomatic approach. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gaijin. Easily passes GNG. Also fulfills PORNBIO #3. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I started this AfD I procedurally !voted neutral, but I think there is adequate and ongoing coverage of the subject to indicate that WP:BLP1E no longer applies (particularly items #1 and #2). VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the history was restored, I've pulled one of the older version of the article and restored it since it is more fleshed out as a whole. It will need to be updated, of course, but I don't entirely want people to come in here and judge notability based on the stubbified version of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The thing about citing WP:BLP1E is that sometimes that one event can actually have lasting repercussions. Knox has been the focus of relatively steady coverage since her debut. As others have pointed out, 1E is typically reserved for instances where the individual is known for something like "woman who can bench press a Buick with her teeth" or "Taylor Swift's ex-best friend from high school speaks out about being snubbed at this awards event"- basically people who are known for something that is all but guaranteed to be a blip in the pan and is extremely unlikely to gain substantial additional coverage once the initial fervor has died down. A wonderful example of this would be the Ikea Monkey. In this particular incident Knox has gained a LOT of coverage and while admittedly the coverage isn't as overwhelmingly large now as it was when this all hit the net back in March, it's still fairly steady and regular. Regardless of how she got media attention, Knox is still getting attention in the media on a regular basis. ([16], [17]) The reality series hasn't aired yet as far as I know, but she did get coverage for that and there is the documentary series- which has released and has received quite a bit of coverage. The article does need some editing overall for content, tone, and so on, especially as far as dates go- I just noticed that there aren't any dates for when a lot of things happened, so that'll need to be fixed. I also recommend semi-protecting the article because I can absolutely guarantee that this will be a vandalism magnet once people on certain sites realize that it's been re-created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found where the media coverage of Knox has been listed in a journal article about English newspaper titles. She's not given a main focus as the paper is about newspaper titles and how they have to be written in a specific way to gain precious clicks, but it does show that this is more than one event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the conditions of WP:BLP1E are not met here. Given Knox's own writing and public appearances, and the recent documentary, I don't see her as someone who "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". She seems to be parlaying the attention from the outing incident into a sort of career. I think there's enough secondary source coverage to establish notability.GabrielF (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore, as Ms. Knox continues to pursue a career, including now the documentary, it seems she has declined to remain a low-profile individual as required by WP:BLP1E.-- danntm ^T _C 06:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am neutrally notifying the commenters from the original AFD via AWB. I asked Sandstein about this prior to starting. User_talk:Sandstein#Belle_Knox Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Miss Knox is well-recognized as a hero for freedom of sexuality. She did not run and hide when 'outed'; she embraced the rightness of her chosen profession. That is what made her notable/reported on to begin with. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. No policy based reason for deletion. Notability is well established. Plenty of extremely notable reliable sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no biography to write. It's news. Details of her life are problematic including using her name. If we had an article on porn stars working their way through college, she may be mentioned as one in that article but there is too much privacy invasion and WP:BLP1E for a biography. There are also WP:ONEEVENT and WP:AVOIDVICTIM if editors contort themselves past BLP1E (note, ONEEVENT is different than BLP1E). One day she may graduate and wish this to all be in her past yet we will immortalize this bio permanently as prurient sideshow that is not encyclopedic. That's as pure a violation in both the spirit and letter of the BLP policy and guidelines as any. WP is not a random collection of information. --DHeyward (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be a little careful about saying that we should delete this based upon speculation that Knox may want this removed one day. I know that this isn't the only thing in your argument, but until Knox herself asks for its deletion we should not automatically assume that she will want this removed based upon the idea that she will see her past as personally harmful for her career. To date she has not said anything that would show that she would try to hide or obscure her past once she completes her degree. I'm not saying that we shouldn't potentially protect people or respect their wishes, just that we aren't trying to provide protection where the person has not requested any and where it could also potentially be detrimental to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our BLP policies are not based on requests by the subjects. Avoiding harm is one of the key tenets. That a bio of a young adult filled with titillating and prurient detail that essentially exist because of doxxing should not be what Wikipedia biographies are about. There are countless college-aged women that work in some form of adult entertainment yet have no bio because they haven't been doxxed. People interested in the real name and university address of females that work in strip clubs or perform in adult movies can find other sources. We don't need to immortalize doxxed identities here and that is the only reason she stands out from the countless others. It is not empowering her by immortalizing her doxxing nor is it empowering for young women to learn that once their real name is known, WP will create and maintain her link to a stage name simply because we can. If she didn't want anonymity, she wouldn't have a stage name. It's that simple, really. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initially she wanted to keep her real name hidden and we respected that in the first incarnation of the article. However since that point Knox has come out with a documentary series where she releases her real name. Also, whether or not the whole scenario (and the article) is/was empowering for Knox shouldn't be a reason for deletion- we have to base it on notability. Sometimes people do things that we as editors find personally unappealing or degrading and sometimes those people gain notability for that fact. We need to be very, very careful that we aren't removing things just because we think that one day Miriam Weeks will suddenly become ashamed of the things that she did under the name of Belle Knox and because we personally find the events distasteful. This can actually be seen as a form of censorship. Well meaning censorship, but still censorship. Most of the times we do this without even thinking about whether or not what we're doing is ultimately beneficial to Wikipedia and the individual or whether or not it's censorship. While no, we shouldn't have stuff just to be salacious, neither should we be white knights in a situation like this. There has already been harm done, but not by Wikipedia and we need to look at whether the Wikipedia article would do harm in this situation, especially when you consider that the entire scenario has been widely reported on and the woman herself has taken the resulting media coverage as a platform to talk about various applicable issues. Basically, what I want to make sure is that in trying to protect her from potential harm that we aren't actually perpetuating harm ourselves by saying that because all of this happened, that obviously she'll regret all of this later (stigmatizing everything) and that she needs to be protected from herself as well as from the world at large. We also need to not kid ourselves: removing this won't really do much for her in the long run. This has already popped up in at least one academic journal (as a focus on media headlines) so this is something that is more than newspapers reporting on someone refusing to provide flowers to a gay couple's wedding or someone quitting their media job because they want to go run a pot shop. We need to avoid harm, yes, but we also need to look at whether or not this is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your argument is another strawman recreation of what I said, but fails to address the fundamental. Picking out women that have chosen to use sex work as a means to support their education is not new. It is not about how editors feel about sex work, it's about contributing to a culture of shaming individuals that have chosen it. This article doesn't exist without her real name. Her own assessment, I believe, is that doxxing has ruined her life. WP is not a random collection of information and information about a single college woman that uses adult entertainment to fund their college career is one person among thousands. She is not notable because she is a college student doing sex work as there are literally tens of thousands that do so. She is in the news because they discovered her identity and affiliation. Using that as a reason for inclusion is harmful. She is not known for her sex work, rather she is known because of a "name and shame" mentality by the press. WP need not be party to that type of sensationalism. This is not Jerry Springer. --DHeyward (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is better researched than it's previous incarnation with plenty links and sources for support. It should be speedy keep at this point. Web Warlock (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm broadly with Tokyogirl79 on this. Belle Knox is steadily accumulating reliable sources, showing that we are past the WP:BLP1E moment; this is not a single-event article but about a person who has for better or worse become well-known, even notorious, and is now developing a media career which is being reported sufficiently to prove it is notable in WP's terms in its own right. Therefore KEEP is the only available option under the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as stated above: "Miss Knox is well-recognized as a hero for freedom of sexuality." world famous and popular person!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the six months since the article was created and deleted, she has continued to gain coverage. I'm also with Tokyogirl79 with this, and I am not convinced by the deletion arguments at this time (note: I created the article originally, but came in with a neutral state of mind in this discussion). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She had coverage outside the porn media that is unequal by any other pornstar in the last year. She definitively have the notoriety required to a have a page. --Guillcote (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on the sources. Also, the outcome of the previous AfD should have been keep as well, and the admin who closed that one did so inappropriately. Everyking (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-cited and better sourced than many Wikipedia articles. The article handles the issue appropriately and in a non-salacious manner. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable under WP:PORNBIO #3 per Gaijin42, Dismas and Guillcote. While one could have made the argument for WP:BLP1E #1 in the first AfD, this clearly no longer applies, given the amble sources demonstrated in the Belle Knox article and those listed by Gaijin42 above. Calebrw (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Although I agree that this article was initially created too soon when the story first came out, I now realize that this is history in the making, not 15 minutes of fame for Knox. She has received ongoing coverage in mainstream media for a while now. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In March she was known only for her outing. That got some extra coverage because of her Duke affiliation, but it was routine nonetheless. Novelty is not notability. We were right to exercise caution in the early days, especially while it remained to be seen how she would handle her newfound notoriety. Since then, she's apparently chosen to embrace it and had some success building on it. She's notable now, even if the coverage of her outpaces her actual notability. Of course, sensation will continue to swirl around her, and we'll have to use judgment about what goes in the article. But the article should stay. Lagrange 613 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm jealous of @Lagrange613:'s rationale as it neatly sums up my reason for changing to keep.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get jealous of Two kinds of pork every time I see them on Wikipedia. AFD rationales come and go, but a great username is forever. Lagrange 613 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While Miriam Weeks may well be notable, Belle Knox is likely not. 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Its the name she is getting the publicity under (particularly in the tv show). Marilyn Monroe? Carlos Esteves? Nick Cage, Ashton Kutcher (I went do High School with him! Hi Chris!) etc.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The consensus last time was to keep, but it got deleted anyway. Ongoing coverage in mainstream media is more than enough to warrant keeping. She's the opposite of "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Sholom (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has no real notability in words or deeds, and nobody mentioned in the article has anything notable to say. I don't know if the "outing" was real or fake - but the whole story and its issues are so predictable and unoriginal. Is little more than an article about stalking by stalkers for stalkers - and I doubt that it will ever be anything more than that. About the only thing interesting is that there are those willing to charge, and those willing to pay, $60,000 a year tuition costs for "women’s studies". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject still does not have any true notability. This is just a passing news story at best. Wikipedia is not news, and there is no reason to cover every person who gets 15 minutes of attention in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well beyond 15 minutes at this point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passed GNG before, and still does so now, obviously. Major kudos to Gaijin42 for digging up so many sources. The article looks very good now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had more than enough sources last time around and had overwhelming support to stay but was deleted improperly by an admin ignoring Wikipedia's policies for some unknown reason (likely more just gaming the system). With additional news and sources the case to keep is even that much stronger this time. (And can Wikipedia eventually do something about admins just doing whatever the hell they want for no good reason?) DreamGuy (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I felt that there was enough, ongoing of the Belle Knox story beyond the simple story of "Porn actress goes to Duke" that it had passed the notability test. That coverage is even more expansive since and it's now regularly talked about in debates about pornography in the context of feminism in reliable sources obviously isn't changing my mind. Knox would still fail the specialized WP:PORNSBIO test, but I believe clearly passes the general notability guidelines. The argument that this is a passing news story simply doesn't hold water - 6 months later and news stories involving Knox in major media still exist, divorced from the details of the initial story, now more than 6 months ago. This is an easy one now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like how notable does it have to be?--150.216.254.207 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the above and move to Miriam Weeks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving would be inappropriate; see WP:STAGENAME. Lagrange 613 11:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a BLP1E stickler, but this is the type of person that passes my opinion of what threshold is for "low-profile individual" (she is not) and "persistent coverage (there is). This has nothing to do with wp:pornbio gibberish, and the article should really be moved to the person's real name. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 6 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Peacock[edit]

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

non-notable ice hockey player. Jacona (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played for a senior national hockey team which satisfies WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes NHOCKEY. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund F. Brennan[edit]

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

This article about a U.S. judge was speedily deleted and restored after discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 19. Because some in that discussion voiced concerns about notability, I'm submitting the artice to AfD to decide this. I myself am neutral. Sandstein 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not intimately familiar with the intricacies of the U.S. federal court system and there was some debate about whether or not a federal magistrate judge meets the criteria of WP:NPOL. In simplest terms, it is a judge position in the federal court system, therefore NPOL is met. Looking into it further, we have a Category:United States magistrate judges, indicating to me that it's a position which we consider notable. However, it doesn't appear to me that Brennan is notable beyond this, so this is the weakest of weak !votes. Keep in mind also that this wouldn't have come to AfD at all if not for a certain admin's gross misunderstanding of WP:CSD#G10 rationalizing nuking an article for containing the slightest of BLP vios. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on all judges — in fact, it has nothing to do with judges at all, and instead the relevant criteria by which a judge has to be measured is WP:JUDGE. According to our article on magistrate judges, however, it's an administrative "junior judge" role which presides over the lower functions of the district court (e.g. bail hearings, search warrants, misdemeanor cases, etc.), so that the "senior" district court judges can concentrate on the more important and notable functions of the system — so a magistrate judge would not automatically meet WP:JUDGE just for holding a magistrate judgeship, but instead would qualify for a Wikipedia article only if you could write it substantively enough, and source it reliably enough, to get him over WP:GNG. But with only one non-primary source here, and with the article being little more than a prosified reiteration of his résumé, that test has not been met. I do agree that it didn't qualify for speedy under the criterion that was cited, when the offending text could simply have been removed from the article, but as written it is still a delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if (a) the quality of sourcing can be improved, and/or (b) he gets promoted to a more senior role that would actually pass WP:JUDGE. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. POLITICIAN expressly says that it applies to judges. JUDGE, which has yet to be accepted as a guideline, expressly says that it does not affect the notability of judges who are notable under POLITICIAN. Either way, if a judge satisfies POLITICIAN, he is notable. James500 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James500 is right to say that NPOL applies to judges. But magistrate judges really aren't judges. They are very low on the judicial food chain and, it seems, do not even give final judgment in cases. They carry out administrative and interlocutory functions under the delegated authority of (actual) judges. There are over 500 in the US. They do not have life tenure, which (I understand) federal judges are constitutionally guaranteed. So applying NPOL to them would be a stretch, and a misconstruction of the guideline. As for the GNG, the closest thing to significant coverage is this, found by Cunard at the DRV. I don't think this brief article on his appointment is significant enough for the purposes of the notability of a living person.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

517 magistrate judges seems to be a small number in absolute terms. By way of comparison, in England, there were, in February, a total of 22,160 justices of the peace: [18]. James500 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominators are advised before posting a deletion discusion, "discussion guidelines are available." This link states,

“

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.

”

Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and there is no presumption of notability for a magistrate judge. According to the only source cited in the article, which is from the Sacramento Bee, "Magistrate judges handle arraignments in criminal cases and pretrial motions in civil cases. They handle much of the heavy volume of prisoner litigation, including death penalty appeals." It's basically a paperwork job; I believe they also sometimes preside over misdemeanor cases. In a search I found no sources that could be used to improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As this magistrate does not appear notable, and being a US magistrate judge would not seem to be an automatically notable position. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Rosario Lindsay (2012 deletion); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas (2nd nomination) (2010 deletion); and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patty Shwartz (deleted 2007; recreated when nominated for a higher judgeship, which she received).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:23, 7 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.

My vote is to keep it, since I'm the contributor of it anyways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Alatorre[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - losing record and no major title fights. Fails WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Fought for no significant titles, had a losing lifetime record, and the only sources are routine sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Wills[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. No major title fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Sources are routine sports coverage and he fought for no significant titles. Interesting that the guy he fought for the California title had 3 wins in 22 fights--clearly a very prestigious title.Mdtemp (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu sivaraman[edit]

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

Autobiographical. Extensively edited by single-purpose-account who appears to also be the subject. Have tried to explain nature of problems and pointed out they mustn't edit or create an article on themselves. They are trying extremely hard to produce references (using copyvio uploads of newspaper scans!) but my own searches aren't producing anything to show independent notability. I can't read the language in the newspaper scans (and won't even try to guess which of the Indian languages it is). This page was nominated for deletion as an unsourced bio - the subject eventually removed the nom at the very last second so I am bringing this for discussion and to try and establish whether this seer is notable. Mabalu (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying - While the newspaper scans may well demonstrate notability, I'm not convinced from the translated titles that notability is to be found. If this is the best we can get by way of references, it's not promising. Mabalu (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Mabalu; we shouldn't have to do acrobatics to find RS BlueSalix (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is notable, but biography of living person requires sources that can be accessed. Whenever these sources will be questioned, we will have nothing for a say. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:30, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Chemistry Letters[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)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete New journal. Indexed by Chemical Abstract, DOAJ, Index-copernicus and many Electronic Journals Libraries in well known universities around the world as well as MNiSzW in Poland. In my opinion you have to give the opportunity to inform about it. wariag

None of that meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. At this point, the only reliable source is an inclusion on a list of predatory publishers, which in and of itself is not enough to make a journal notable either. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't pass WP:NJournals and in general I think it's a bad idea to have articles on individual predatory open-access journals (there are so many of them and they play an insignificant role in real science). If its publisher could be shown to be notable then it could be useful to have a redirect from this title to the publisher's article, as a way of warning editors that publications in the journal are likely unreliable, but the publisher article currently doesn't exist, its inclusion in Beall's list alone is insufficient for notability, and that's an inadequate reason to keep a separate article on the journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Article fail WP:NJOURNAL. Obviously non-notable journal.Wikicology (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a case like this, I'd normally suggest a redirect to the publisher, but the publisher isn't notable either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any evidence that the journal is indexed in selective databases and GScholar shows low citation rates for its papers; the journal fails notability guidelines in WP:NJournals. . The journal is mentioned in Beall's list of predatory journals and is mentioned for rejecting a bogus paper in a sting, but neither of these are in enough depth to satisfy notability thresholds in WP:GNG. The journal's existence is verifiable, but I don't see a good target for a selective merge or redirect. Hence deletion is the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete This Journal exist for several years and publish strong manuscript only after the 2 positive reviews from external reviewers arrived. Journal does not take a fee for the publication and it was recognized in several countries by Ministry of Science. Obviously, it is not tot Journal in Chemistry but it certainly worth to be noted in WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Fallout dwa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note That Current Chemistry Letters does not have any policy to charge any fees for publishing articles, and international reviewing process is described on it page. So it should not be included in Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the inclusion on Beall's list is, at this point, the only independent reference to the journal. If it weren't included on that list (which you'll have to take up with Beall himself, not WP), that would just mean that there would be zero independent sources. Whether predatory or not, this journal is very far from becoming notable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Very interesting, new chemistry journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka48 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Agnieszka48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neither being "interesting" nor being "new" makes a subject notable. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is only your subjective opinion. wikipedia is guided by a neutral point of view. Wariag (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas "it is a very interesting journal" is a purely objective NPOV opinion, right? Please have a look at WP:NPOV and compare it with WP:GNG, these two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 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 Speedy delete. G3: Obvious hoax. All the IPs geolocate to Burnaby BC, where the school is located. —SMALL JIM 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bunao Boys[edit]

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

Complete hoax. G3 has been contested by random IPs. No information exists. It's seems to be created by a handful of Canadian school children. Ish dar ian 07:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Hannah Graham[edit]

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

No indication that this event is of lasting importance as outlined at WP:LASTING. VQuakr (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, many people around the world disappear each year and some of the disappearances attract attention of the media and the general public. However, as an encyclopedia, we cannot and should not cover all the stories unless they prove to be of special significance. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defiantly agree; not a lasting story. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

comment We have an article on another missing white woman case from the same city: Morgan Dana Harrington. The sourcing and coverage are similar, and thus the notability of the two articles should be similar. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Or just include it as part of the list at the bottom of Missing_white_woman_syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4300:11A2:D0:FA0B:B268:2781 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or start deleting most of the articles in categories like Missing person cases by decade. Sources are solid and include the likes of CNN, USA Today, and ABC.

Moreover this nomination seems to ignore that the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline basically says an article's notability depends on the event in question. While its satisfaction of WP:LASTING could be debated, like many of the articles in the cited category, based on the tone of coverage it certainly fits the circumstances stated in WP:N/CA. I'd support moving it to the Missing White Woman Syndrome article, if there are sources calling this situation such a case. Anynobody(?) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for two weeks, WP:NPASR This is too soon to determine notability. This has received ongoing national coverage, although I don't know why. Currently it violates WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment copied from the talk page

“

I would say hold off on deleting for a brief period of time (2-4 weeks). Any relatively significant disappearance (and or foul play which is likely) can constitute some historical news, at least for the immediate area. I live in the D.C. area this is extremely notable event in the news now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.40.66 (talk) 2014-09-22T11:56:05

”

23:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree with Unscintillating. See also Missing white female syndrome. I saw this on CNN over the weekend, and it made me sick for so many reasons: another college student gone missing and possibly assaulted, the sensationalistic media, the invasion of privacy, blaming the victim, convicting persons of interest before even being arrested, etc. Bearian (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has caused a great deal of media attention and is very well sourced, making it hard to argue that it's any less notable than most of the other 59 pages at Category:2000s missing person cases and Category:2010s missing person cases. The case is unfolding in a nearly-identical way to Murder of Brianna Denison, which, in hindsight, has proven to be a valuable resource for people wanting to write about the case (i.e., one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia). These cases do tend to have lasting effects, as they tend to lead to changes in laws, policies, and practices where they happen. KarakasaObake (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KarakasaObake: NamUS contains 18,000 missing persons cases, and that is for the United States alone. The argument should not be "look at these other 59", but "look at these other 17,900." VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: The obvious difference between the 59 pages we have, and the 17,900 pages we don't, is that the 59 pages are for cases that were the subject of significant media interest, which invariably led to a a large, organized search; a widespread feeling of fear in the area; candlelight vigils; etc. It's the reaction to the disappearance that makes it notable. I feel like this is akin to an argument that we shouldn't have an article on The Rape of the Lock because there are a hundred million poems we don't have pages for, and besides, people get their hair cut all the time. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have different inclusion criteria for literature than for events. WP:NEVENT does not mention vigils, search parties, or feelings of fear and for good reason - there are many, many more than 59 vigils per decade worldwide. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr:No, WP:NEVENT doesn't mention vigils or search parties, but it does mention depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources, all of which this case has. And, quoting directly from WP:NEVENT: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable." KarakasaObake (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"NamUS contains 18,000 missing persons cases...." I don't see the relevance of those 18,000. the majority of them have not been shown to be suspected or charged abductions as this case has.108.18.74.119 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking over other notable crimes listed here, and especially noting the very strong reaction at UVA, it is more than notable.108.18.74.119 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have noted, this is an essentially unremarkable disappearance; many happen every year. For people close to UVA or who otherwise feel particular kinship to this young woman, this may seem callous, but fundamentally, in ten years, regardless of outcome, no one is likely to care about this at all. To editors pointing out similarly trivial articles, please remember WP:OTHERSTUFF -- editors like myself in favor of deleting this article would probably be in favor of deleting all your similar examples for the same reasons, but this discussion is limited to this article. If we needed to put all vaguely similar content on trial everytime we had a deletion discussion we'd never get anywhere.

The only way that I might consider this article notable and keep-worthy is if, somewhere along the line, the reason for her disappearance turns out to be especially notable -- abducted by aliens, or ISIS, or something similarly unlikely. I don't see any point in keeping the article around until that notability is established, however -- it can always be resurrected if it turns out that something truly distinguishes this girl from all the other missing persons cases out there that by luck or tragedy don't get the same kind of media coverage.Eniagrom (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Notability isn't the same as interesting or weird or whatever. The case doesn't become more or less notable depending on who kidnapped her; it is more or less notable depending on how important people think it is and how much attention they give it. Everyking (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep for now. It has the intense and widespread coverage similar to other Missing White Female cases which have been found to be notable in AFDs. Obviously one cannot use the time machine to travel to the future and see how lasting the effects and coverage were. We could revisit in a couple of years and delete it if the coverage fades quickly. It should not be added to the Missing White Female Syndrome article unless reliable sources call it an instance of such disproportionate coverage. So far I do not see such linkage in the news coverage. Edison (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changed from Weak Keep). It is a news story, and this is an encyclopedia, not "Top Stories Of The Week." If the case becomes as notable as the killing of Bobby Franks by Leopold and Loeb, if laws are passed as a result ("Hannah's Law"), if it is discussed in legal textbooks, if books and movies (like "In Cold Blood" ) are written about it, or if there is a notable and precedent-setting trial, then we can create an encyclopedic article. Not every hyped story needs a permanent entry in encyclopedias. Edison (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally you can read an encyclopedic treatment of the "top stories of the week" on Wikipedia. Normally nobody even considers nominating such articles for deletion. You can trivialize anything—"another missing white girl"—but if the world thinks it's important, that's all that matters. Everyking (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has not been established that this case is anything more than a routine news story. Yes, it is getting a lot of coverage but the suspect was arrested yesterday, so that is sort of expected. There is nothing interesting about this case (especially now that there has been an arrest) that is going to hold the public's interest outside of the immediate area. Laladoodle92 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. It is too soon to decide if there is WP:PERSISTENCE; however for a current event it seems widely discussed enough to be probably notable, meeting WP:DEPTH. It seems to meet the second point of WP:EVENTCRIT very well, in other words.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, a lot of people disappear and their disappearance never become notable, but a few do. Whether we agree with whether their disappearance should have been widely covered, really doesn't matter. I don't know why her disappearance has received such persistent coverage, but it has. WP:DEPTH has been met and WP:PERSISTENCE is now met, though that wasn't clear when the article was nominated, but it is now. I am One of Many (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has very large amounts of coverage, and as noted lots of article about disappearances and such exist 71.197.6.193 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is big news story that is getting international coverage due to the fact that the missing person is a UK citizen. Possible connection to other unsolved disappearances and murders of young women in the area over the past several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.125.47 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seem to get over the notability threshold by WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There has been a majority of votes recently in favour of keeping the article so I'd like some more discussion regarding whether this article should be deleted or kept given the current level of media coverage.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Give the dust a few weeks to settle. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Things have just changed and a positive connection has been made between the suspect in this case and the Morgan Dana Harrington case and the 2004 Fairfax rape. The notability of these subjects are intertwined.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is just a news story. Not worthy of an encyclopedia page. Ksoth (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The case has continuously been a major news story since it was first announced that she was missing. While it is too soon to judge if WP:LASTING will be met, that is only one section of the larger Wikipedia:Notability (events), which suggests even events without lasting effect might be notable if they receive significant coverage. Furthermore, the latest news reports indicate a connection to the disappearance and murder of Morgan Dana Harrington. That case has already received significant coverage over several years, and if the two are connected, the combined topic would certainly be notable. Calathan (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reason that Calathan said. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comments above, that this story is still in the news, and that it may be connected to a serial killer. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the reason given by Calathan rkmlai (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the serial killer connection is indeed interesting, I'd like to point out that it reduces the notability of Hannah Graham's disappearance as warranting its own article. Should it turn out that she was killed or otherwise targetted by an at-large serial killer who has had other victims, the likely result of that would be a merger of all articles relating to the individual victims to a page on the serial killer or his killing spree. As such, this article would be an even stronger candidate for deletion (or at the very least, redirection), along with, if appropriate, Morgan Dana Harrington.Eniagrom (talk) 08:52, 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gibbs (judge)[edit]

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

Unsourced. The original link provided to Debretts, reliability of that source nonwithstanding, is no longer valid, nor does a search at that site for anyone by the name of Richard Gibbs produce a person of that name. Unable to find reliable sources which verify the existence of this individual, or provide evidence of notability. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Okay, this person is sometimes rendered without the Gibbs, but is verified at [[19]] as Sir Richard John Hedley Gibbs. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Miller (philosopher)[edit]

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

It's not clear if she passes WP:ACADEMIC (although in humanities the situation is seldom clear-cut) and there are serious potential WP:BLP violations in the article due to lack of sources combined with mostly negative statements. I've googled around a bit, but couldn't find much in the way of sources about her, so I think it's prudent to delete the whole article. JMP EAX (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the same very problematic (without a citation) BLP statements about her are made in Paris 8 University. JMP EAX (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I found [20], which is an article about Judith Miller suing Élisabeth Roudinesco (the only source cited in this article) for defamation, although the lawsuit/article is about stuff Roudinesco wrote about Lacan, not focused on Judith Miller herself. JMP EAX (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being listed in Concept and Form: The Cahiers pour l’Analyse and Contemporary French Thought provides some evidence of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Eastmain. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:55, 27 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, Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an academic she is less than nothing, but as a radical femme, she is notable. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 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 speedy delete. Lacks a clear assertion of importance §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rammohan paliyath[edit]

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

notability, lacking of sources, style, grammar Owais khursheed (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of Notability, significance or importance. Wikicology (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted (G11) by FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huttu savina nanthara[edit]

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

its sources are unreliable. Muazim Balwan (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly spam / advertising; should be speedied under G11 in my opinion. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 06:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there's a notable topic here, which I doubt, the current content should go. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT Reads like an advert. 220 of ^Borg 08:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 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 speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD in view of improvements. (I may make some additional ones) DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Shakespeare Company[edit]

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

local festival. extensive listing of productions violates WP:NOT. but even if it were removed, there still isn othing for ntoability except routine notices) DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[In Defense of this article] The article is patterned after other similar articles on Wikipedia such as "Hudson Warehouse", "Woodward Shakespeare Festival", and "Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival" and many other similar articles that speak of a theater or festival performing Shakespeare (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shakespeare_festivals).

How are all of these other articles that are similar in content and format, OK to remain on WP and this article isn't? All of these other articles on Shakespeare theaters or festivals list the same things that this article does such as

organizational history
founder/leader information
past productions
where they perform.

The list of productions has been edited down to only include the last two years. This can be further modified if need be. What is the criteria for a section like this?

As for being notable, (i.e worthy of inclusion on WP) one of WP's criteria is that the group/person/event be recognized by other verifiable sources. The article contains several references to outside publications and city entities that recognize what the group has done such as the "Connecticut Post" and the "Jersey Journal". The company is notable from a historical perspective in that its been operating for nearly 25 years in New Jersey and is affiliated with several communities within New Jersey and also Stratford, CT. The first two companies listed above, "Hudson Warehouse" and "Woodward Shakespeare", have been operating for 10 years. How are these groups MORE notable from a historical perspective then this group that has been around twice as long? How are they MORE notable as they list the same type of content, as this articles does, and again not being questioned for deletion?

Further, there is a section in the article itself which lists "Notable Achievements". They include:

The company's founder was recognized for contributions to his community through the Hudson Shakespeare Company by the "Jersey Journal", the main newspaper of this section of New Jersey.
Several members of the company were published in a book in 2014 whose subject matter is Shakespeare and Theater.
Award nominations in a long running New York City theater festival.
One of its productions was highlighted in the New Cambridge press edition of "Two Noble Kinsmen". a scholarly edition of individual Shakespeare plays similar to the "Penguin Shakespeare" or "Arden Shakespeare" series. This is a recognized scholarly institution verifying the company's mission to do lesser done Shakespeare plays.

In summary AGAINST deleting this article:

It follows WP criteria for articles in that its historical and ongoing activities are verifiable by noted outside sources.
The article is patterned after other like theater company/festival articles, both in content and format, already on WP that are NOT being questioned for deletion.
Its notable from a historical perspective in how long its been operating and it's connection to several communities in New Jersey.
Contains notable achievements such as an award where its founder was recognized for service to the surrounding community, noted in two literary publications and recognized in peer award nominations.

I submit if that these other articles on theater groups are not being questioned for deletion and the "Past Productions" list has been edited down than there is no ground for this article on "Hudson Shakespeare Company" to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbari7057 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[In Defense of this article] The original complaint that got this article listed for possible deletion was an “extensive listing of productions violates WP:NOT” The section has since been shortened to contain only 2 years worth of information. However, there are several live articles on Wikipedia that have extensive production lists and have not been singled out for deletion. The original productions section contained a listing of productions ranging from 1992-2014. As has been stated in a previous posting this article was designed to match up with other similar Wikipedia articles. Each play listing linked to a related Wikipedia page if it was applicable. To illustrate this point of existing Wikipedia articles on Shakespeare festivals having extensive production credits but have not been singled out for deletion, here is a list:

Atlantic Theater Festival (listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shakespeare_festivals)
Baltimore Shakespeare Festival
Bard on the Beach
Shakespeare in Delaware Park
Georgia Shakespeare Festival
Houston Shakespeare Festival
Illinois Shakespeare Festival
Nashville Shakespeare Festival
Oak Park Shakespeare Festival (listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shakespeare_festivals)
Pendley Open Air Shakespeare Festival
Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Shakespeare in the Park (New York)

Each of these are live Wikipedia articles that have extensive production listings where some contain links to existing Wikipedia pages. So why the bias against this article Hudson Shakespeare Company? Why are the articles cited above allowed to have extensive production credits and are not being considered for deletion, while the Hudson Shakespeare Company article is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbari7057 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Professional repertory company established in 1992 with 22 seasons, numerous productions, exstensive touring, educational outreach, and as above...Djflem (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article admittedly needs work. It's written with a promotional tone, there are several WP:MOS issues and other editing needed, but there is sufficient references from reliable and verifiable sources about the company to justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heys[edit]

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

rather obvious blp violation DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP1E , either delete or selective merge a couple of sentences about his FA ban to the recent history of Accrington Stanley. Qwfp (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He is/was a club director, not a player - why would we have expected him to play international football.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khandaq Center[edit]

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

unsourced spammy claims Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:COMPANY, created by a WP:CORPNAME account. Solely for advertising, certainly must qualify for G11 speedy deletion. --Drm310 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per WP:CSD#G11. Obviously do not meet WP:COMPANY. The article is nothing but a blatant WP:ADVERTISEMENT.Wikicology (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CORP and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:28, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Square Magazine[edit]

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

no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a lot of hits on blogs. However, I don't really see any coverage in reliable sources. Maybe someone else can do better. I haven't read any photography magazines in a long while, so maybe I'm out of touch with what's current. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. No significant coverage to third-party reliable sources establish its notability. Article solely rely on its own source to establish notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another AFC gem. Can't see how this would pass WP:CORPDEPTH given the lack of significant coverage about the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:45, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FDRMX[edit]

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

Written with a promotional tone, plus not sure if it passes WP:GNG. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any assertions of notability. I say delete. DS (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lebow[edit]

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

Even with the information in the article it is unclear if this person is notable. But since basically nothing of it is verifiably sourced, I argue for deletion. The subject seems rather elusive, anyways. bender235 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's famous for inventing the phrase: "conspicuous consumption". Bearian (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Changing to delete: after more research, it appears that this person only popularized it. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources about him except for his one relatively famous quote. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:54, 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. Per the cogent reasoning of Bearcat. Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keysha freshh[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can find no reliable sources that would establish notability. Seems like a promo piece, but I think it falls right outside of the G11 scope. Ish dar ian 05:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per guild-lines Under WP:MUSICBIO at least only ONE of the criteria must be met:

Works from this artist can be found on notable music distribution sites such as Amazon and iTunes. http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Fresh-feat-Dougie/dp/B0037P0CLC https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/hollywood-fresh-feat.-dougie/id355222015

and notable publications such as (non of which are: self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself) / http://allunsigned.com/keysha-freshh-keyshato-vanity/ http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/entertainment/5439-keysha-1 https://djmelboogie.wordpress.com/tag/keysha-fresh/ http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/entertainment/5570-keysha-2 http://elbo.ws/post/2514507/hollywood-fresh-introducing-new-toronto-artist-keysha/ http://www.rapdict.org/Keysha http://bigmouthsonline.com/introducing-keysha-canadas-newest-up-and-coming-female-artist-videobio/ http://chrynews.wordpress.com/tag/keysha-freshh/ http://urbanologymag.com/um/keysha-freshh-coolin/ http://www.rapdict.org/Keysha http://www.cityonmyback.com/?s=keysha

11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: This artist (as mentioned in bio) as been in rotation on major radio stations including, Flow 93.5 in Toronto, http://tunein.com/radio/BoomFM-941-s202795/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceRse (talk • contribs) 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO says nothing about music distribution such as amazon or iTunes. None of the listed publications appear to be notable and any mention in a publication needs to be beyond trivial, i.e. not just listed by name. The final point is debateable concerning national. It would need an actual source. So far this fails WP:MUSICBIO. freshacconci talk to me 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word in #11 is network, which the stations you listed aren't. The only five radio services in Canada that can ever satisfy criterion #11 by themselves are all listed at CBC Radio, in fact — and even if the stations you listed did satisfy the criterion, which they don't, you haven't provided any sources by which we can verify whether, or how heavily, any of them actually playlisted her. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having music available for sale on Amazon or iTunes, or anywhere else for that matter, does not confer notability per WP:MUSICBIO. I cannot confirm that any of the links posted in support by User:JaniceRse qualify as significant coverage in reliable third-party sources: AllUnsigned posts press releases (and says so on their About page), the first Caribbean Camera link is unavailable (even on the Wayback Machine) and the second (also offline, but archived) only includes her name in a list of players at a "celebrity basketball" event for charity and says nothing of substance about her, djmelboogie.wordpress.com is a DJ's personal blog, elbo.ws is unavailable and unarchived, Rapdict is a publicly editable wiki, bigmouthsonline.com appears to be occupied by a domain squatter (and that page is not archived) but the description on their Twitter calls it a "blog company for interviews", UrbanologyMag is down for repairs (I'll check back in a couple of days when they're supposed to be back up), and CityOnMyBack appears to be a promotional blog mostly consisting of YouTube videos and press releases. I haven't listened to the CHRY News clip yet, but since that is an Ontario radio station that would only show local coverage anyway. The references on the article itself are her own site, a reposted press release (the same one also posted on AllUnsigned, it looks like), the Rapdict wiki, an MTV artist page (these are submitted by the artists themselves or their PR people) which has no bio and just links tracks to buy, and a page that doesn't mention her at all but appears to be a DJ booking site. WP:MUSICBIO#11 is about being placed in rotation by a radio network, not a single station. — Gwalla | Talk 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Absolutely agreed, as I am PR for the artist I should have posted updated links our apologies on that negligence.

STATION NETWORKS that have had this artist in rotation: Bell Media (Which owned and operated Flow 93.5 at the time, and Virgin radio 99.9, Top 2 urban stations in Toronto playing hip-hop music) Blue Ant Media (Which operates AUX TV where the artist Music video was on rotation)

Being owned by a media conglomerate does not make a radio station a network. Radio networks air a programming schedule that's predominantly or entirely common to all stations in the network, and CBC Radio's services are the only ones in Canada which meet that criterion (the sports networks being irrelevant to NMUSIC.) Neither Flow 93.5 nor Virgin 99.9 is "networked" with any other station — sharing ownership with another station that has no common programming is not the same thing as being a network. And even if Flow or Virgin did count, you haven't provided any sources by which we can verify that she got playlisted on either of them (or on Aux.) Bearcat (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles posted about artist that are neither: non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself:

-Artist covering "Share News": "One of Canada’s largest and most influential ethnic newspapers and by far the largest one serving the Black and Caribbean community in Toronto" - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KeyshaShare.jpg

-Artist covering "Pride" newspaper: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2index.jpg

As these were published before these news companies integrated to an online format the articles are not available, however I have just contacted both and will have versions of both articles made available for further examination to confirm they fit within the guidelines listed under *WP:MUSICBIO

This is not an artist that you Google and there are suggestions for other artist, as soon as this artist name is entered into web searches, many publications appear solidifying the artist credentials. Allunsigned is a notable publication amongst the hip-hop community, also is http://www.hip-hopvibe.com - which posts the artist's most recent releases but does not "report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" this is simply a publication that chooses to post the artists' music and give their opinion on the artist and the music. JaniceRse (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a PR representative for the artist, then per our conflict of interest policy you shouldn't be creating or editing an article about her at all. Wikipedia exists as a venue for neutral information about people who have passed our notability criteria, not as a venue for anybody to extend their own marketing campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this article as written passes WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing that's been provided so far, either in the article or in this discussion, is purely promotional — not one shred of properly reliable source coverage has actually been provided so far. What JaniceRse is missing is the part of NMUSIC where it specifies that regardless of how many items on the notability checklist an article claims that the subject meets, it's not the assertion that gets her past NMUSIC, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. If you have to rely on marketing/promotional materials to "source" the assertion, and cannot cite coverage in reliable independent sources which supports the claims, then the criterion has not been passed — precisely because marketing/promotional/PR teams tend to inflate claims of notability well beyond the actual reality (e.g. it got played one time on one radio station = it's a worldwide smash megahit!), no musician ever gets over an NMUSIC criterion until the claim that she gets over an NMUSIC criterion is properly sourced. And merely reposting a copy of the newspaper's cover to Commons does not satisfy our inclusion rules, either. And I already noted both the conflict of interest rule, and the reasons why it exists, that if you're her PR agent then you have exactly no business going anywhere near a Wikipedia article about her at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation, by somebody independent of her marketing team, in the future if and when, and only if and when, she can actually be properly sourced as having passed one or more of the NMUSIC criteria. Bearcat (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 delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Dorrity[edit]

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

Previously a BLP PROD - I still think it is. The references are his official site and I believe a site that's got some of his scultptures. He does do awesome work, I have to admit - but a google news search reveals nothing. I've expanded to "Devon Dorrity Sculpture" and that seems to only pull his site and some tumblr hits. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of secondary sources Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG, simply a competent person and we are not linked in.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage in reliable independent sources for WP:NOTEBLP. Fails WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 04:32, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Worthington[edit]

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

Non notable; the coverage is just incidental: pictures of her, mentions in an interview, etc. amazing that this was accepted from afc. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only significant coverage in an independent source seems to be the Watford Observer article. I don't think one article in a local newspaper is enough to meet WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails WP:BASIC. Obviously non-notable subject. Wikicology (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sadly no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's AFC; not amazing at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:48, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Dougall[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based a speculative claim that he would play for SC Telstar in the future. The inadmissibility of notability based potential future appearances remains one of the strongest and longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully professional league.Simione001 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As of 27 September 2014, Kenneth Dougall has played eight times this season [21] for SC Telstar in the Eerste Divisie which is a Fully Professional League therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm changing my comment again. He has now made his début in a Fully professional league therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. This was not the case at the time of nomination. @Fenix down:, @Nfitz:, @Jodi.a.schneider:, @Jim Cartar: and @Mikemor92: do you want to reconsider your comment in light of this??? IJA (talk) 11:07, 4 October 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. @IJA: soccerway seems to indicate that he has not in fact played, merely been an unused sub in all games so far this season, the telstar website does not categorically state he played, though willing to be corrected on this. Per WP:CRYSTAL he is not notable at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a misinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. Crystal is about unverifiable speculation. It allows for things that are almost certain to occur. While a newly signed 15-year old would indeed by Crystal, a midfielder who has been on the bench for 6 out of the last 7 weeks, is almost certain to make an appearance.

Delete not notable (yet). Haven't played in a WP:FPL, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to Wikipedia:Drafts~~ Player has been on bench for 6 of last 7 starts for a fully-professional team. I don't see any point completely deleting article only to restore in a few weeks. Use WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH instead of Wikipedia:Waste of Time. Deleting this article only to recreate it in a few weeks or months is a complete waste of everyone's time. We've seen time and time again that these articles for players on fully professional teams (especially those who are not keepers) who are on the bench week-after-week almost always get recreated legitimately. We've also seen that often the articles are rewritten from scratch losing information, and often with no restoration of the edit history. There is WP:NOHARM in simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens; the article can easily be deleted in the future. Nfitz (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 16:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to Drafts namespace~~ Keep ~~until he makes his debut, as per Nfitz. This is someone on the cusp of a debut, not a youth league only player.~~ Made his debut a few hours ago. See https://twitter.com/Telstar1963NV/status/518123872814915584 The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Drafts namespace makes sense to me, per Nfitz and The-Pope above. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as nominator. Having made his debut, the article now passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perhaps we can stop wasting everyone's time by nominating players for deletion who are almost certain to be making a fully professional appearance within days. Simply note the article, and bring it to deletion a few weeks later, if it doesn't seem that they will actually appear. Nfitz (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As this AfD clearly indicates, there is no need for such a stance. If players meet a guidline during a discussion then opinions change, if not, they are not notable and should be deleted. Fenix down (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps we can stop wasting everyone's time by creating articles for players who are yet to make a fully professional appearance. We create articles for people who are notable, we don't create articles about people who are not yet notable and then sit around waiting for them to become notable. Simply note the person and bring it to Wikipedia a few weeks later, if they actually appear. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:50, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scalco (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

No references for notability, except for press releases. Nor would they be expected: head of a non-notable company. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the article nor was any found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Google gives a few quotes and press releases. No hits in News or Books. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fispeven analysis[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax. I could find absolutely no support for this term at Google, Google Scholar or Google Books; the only thing that turned up in a search was this article. There apparently really was an Augustine Hay, an obscure Scottish cleric; the article claims he invented this analysis, but I could find nothing connecting him with this subject. Both articles were written by the same editor on the same day. I prodded them both, and a brand-new special-purpose-account editor turned up at this article within the hour, removing the prod and claiming that they could verify the information in the article. I still think it's a hoax. Taking it to the community to decide. MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. It's always fun when "sources" are given without even half of what's necessary to identify them. However, WorldCat returns absolutely no results for Currents in American Literature: The Roaring Twenties and Lost Generation and no valid results for The Evolution of Language Analyses. The only Google hits for "fispeven" outside of Wikipedia and mirrors are for FISPEven, the Fundación para la Investigación Clínica, epidemiológica y de salud pública en Venezuela (a Venezuelan public health organization). Well, I should say, almost the only hits; Google indexed a pdf entitled "fispeven analysis.pdf". However, that file is no longer available at its indexed location—which, for the record, was in the webspace of an individual user of the Pittsford Central School District (I decline to provide the link here because it is both broken and identifies the user in its URL). The overwhelmingly likely situation is that this, and the related article Augustine Hay, are literally things made up in school one day. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for the excellent research. Is this "hoax season" at Wikipedia? I've caught two in two days. (You might enjoy this one as well.) I shudder to think how many we are missing. Maybe it relates to the fact that school has been in session for a few weeks in the U.S.? --MelanieN (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good call MelanieN. I did numerous sweeps, found nothing internationally, major US news, even an unfiltered search yielded nothing. I sent an email to author Jenna Blum (an authority on writing technique) to ask for her view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Writer and writing analyst Jenna Blum emailed me that she had never heard of Fispeven analysis or Penta technique (although she indicated that it is still possible that they could exist); my sense is that is one more indication of either a hoax or nonnotability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 6 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S6[edit]

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

Deleted PROD on rumored smartphone: per WP:CRYSTAL. —teb728 t c 01:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL. The time to start an article about this is when Samsung actually announces release details for an actual S6. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. Rumours don't deserve to have a place on an encyclopaedia. When it is announced, the article should be created. st170e^talk 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Android devices[edit]

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

Delete - Article is an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness. uKER (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This is just too broad to ever be useful. Begoon ^talk 01:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not Consumer Reports. And putting together charts of arbitrary items seems like synthesis. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Utterly pointless article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Nwlaw63 noted, Wikipedia is not consumer reports and this is absolutely not an article. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to android.com: "The world's most popular mobile OS. More than a billion phones and tablets around the world run Android." so better leave at least a few words... Jidanni (talk) 03:33, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanne Henry[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created a couple of weeks ago. How about trying to look for sources instead of deleting a new article? Zambelo; talk 04:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, there are no sources besides a few mention in obscure publications. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, the first onus was on you to provide enough sources to make her article keepable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to establish notability, does not meet WP:BIO. Search for sources (web, news, journal) did not find anything other than self-published, social media, and directory listings. Tgeairn (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if enough properly reliable sourcing can actually be found to get her over WP:GNG — but she's not entitled to keep an article on Wikipedia that's referenced solely to her own self-published website, or that's formatted like a résumé. Especially in a WP:BLP, notability and reliable sourcing has to be demonstrated immediately, and is not something that you get to claim an exemption from just because the article is "new". Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and above. Did numerous sweeps of US news sources, psychology sources, didn't find anything that might meet WP:GNG, although if Wikipedia is a cult, she might be able to extract us from it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a shred of evidence of notability. How much more of this crap is there?? --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Fails to satisfy the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 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 speedy delete. A11 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrio[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. A Google news and book search reveals nothing notable. KJ^Discuss? 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discuss again when they find more infions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ebrio is a common word in Spanish, so all the hits for the word "drunk" are masking any for the name of the beverage or mixed drink. In the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Ebrio redirects to es:Ebriedad. If this is a bottled or canned drink, it might be easier to find links by searching for the name of the manufacturer, or by restricting one's search to beverage industry periodicals. Eastmain (talk • contribs) `

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, one-sentence stub. They may write it from scratch when they find reliable sources and more information. Don't worry, I will put that one sentence and they will not get unnecessarily tired for this deletion. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:32, 6 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.