Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 September	8 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoan Moncada[edit]

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

Not every Cuban defector is notable. While the MLB source provided is reliable, that's just the one, and he doesn't appear to pass GNG. Wizardman 23:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played professionally in Cuba in the Cuban National Series.--Yankees10 23:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources anyway:[1][2][3][4][5]--Yankees10 23:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Cuban National Series is amateur, FYI. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the Cuban league's level of play is comparable to, or even better than, that of Japan and Korea, considering their domination of international events. Alex (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No reason why those leagues players should be anymore notable than the Cuban league.--Yankees10 01:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNS is not on par with MLB, NPB, etc. Cuban players should not have automatic inclusion in NBASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNS has certainly produced numerous top-level players over the last 40 years, but I seriously question whether the depth of player talent is anything like that of MLB or NPB. The popular perception of Cuban baseball derives from the well earned reputation of the Cuban national team, which is a government-controlled all-star team that gets 100% of the best baseball talent in Cuba. Imagine the U.S. or Japanese national baseball teams we could assemble if we could pick the best 40 players in MLB and NPB and those players were then required to play for the U.S. and Japanese national teams. I also believe that the "defection" exodus to MLB has diluted the depth of talent in Cuba. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the above sources, the MLB.com article, as well as others, plus that he is one of the next signees of the Cuban defection influx so the potential for notability in this borderline case will likely increase. Should no further coverage materialize, I'd change my vote in a future AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep specifically adopting Muboshgu's rationale immediately above, including the caveat regarding future AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Yankees10 and Moboshgu. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per the author's request. Article userfied to User:Fxmastermind/The Global Warming War. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Warming War[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Referencers are production company website & imdb, not enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete it. Fxmastermind (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the film can be watched in its entirety as a festival preview, TOO SOON is less applicable and we can look for sources. If author indeed wishes it deleted, I suggest it instead be userfied to him for continued work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying seems a reasonable outcome to me.TheLongTone (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lisanin ang Paraiso[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted by Orangemike, non-admin closure - lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems like a hoax, none of the sources make any mention of this "show", nor could I find any others that did through Google. Jinkinson talk to me 22:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article seems to be largely copied and pasted from the content of Ang Lihim ni Annasandra (TV series), created by the same user who created Lisanin ang Paraiso. Jinkinson talk to me 22:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Another hoax article created by User:HardcorePunkIsland's sockpuppets. See this another related AFD for details of this user. -WayKurat (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Dike Jr.[edit]

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

This article is simply NOT NOTABLE!!! The only atom of notability is winning an un-notable award. There are no reliable sources to prove that he actually won the un-notable award sef. Darreg (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable. On top of that, he only received trivial mentions in the sources cited. Him being an editor of a notable Nigerian magazine doesn't make him notable as notability is not inherited. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Versace1608: I just discovered now that being a writer or editor in a newspaper company can make you pass Wikipedia:Notability_(journalists) but he was not the one that wrote the National Mirror reference cited in the article. YNaija is not what I will call a major publishing house (but that is debatable). So for now I will still stay with a Delete vote. Darreg (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited on Wikipedia. A subject needs to gain notability independently and cannot rely on his/her spouse, workplace, etc. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons described by nominator. Silverfish8088 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the award does not make him notable and we are not sure about the award. Spumuq (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Shows[edit]

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

Does not meet policy for standalone page per WP:TOOSOON Asdklf; (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve referencing per significant coverage in independent sources including: [6] [7] [8][9] Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Short article but perfect. --K12D10 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Jinkinson - Needs some TLC really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources have been posted which demonstrate notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple third party reliable sources were posted by Jinkinson. Passes WP:NALBUM. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tremor (comics)[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This character is not a minor character and has had a number of toys made after it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this articles should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luz Clarita (TV series)[edit]

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

Hoax. Not one of the listed actors have ever participated in this series. Given source does not mention the subject. Google brings up the Mexican movie, not a Filipino drama like this article says this is. I investigated this article's legitimacy after WayKurat tagged it as a hoax. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this really is a hoax, does anyone else suspect it might be the work of a sock of User:Bertrand101? Jinkinson talk to me 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I've tagged it under ~~A11~~ G3 since it is a hoax, The reference in the article doesn't even mention Luz Clarita.... and searching the actors name with the progamme comes up with nothing other than Wikipedia mirrors .... There's Luz Clarita which is legit but this isn't. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - I have nominated this previously for speedy deletion as a hoax article but someone didn't agree on it. Also, the creator is not Bertrand101, but it's one of User:HardcorePunkIsland's socks. This is another user to watch out since he/she (or his/her socks) created a LOT of hoax upcoming GMA Network shows. -WayKurat (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars moons[edit]

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

Almost no reliable sources, written from an entirely in-universe perspective, no indication of real world notability, no proof of subject existence, WP:UNDUE detail on moons.Nathan121212 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's no moon... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a trap! St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this content better suited to Wookiepedia, no out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons described by nominator. No comment RE: Wookiepedia. Silverfish8088 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Diocese of Australia[edit]

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

the topic is not notable, a WP:BEFORE checked yield no usable references. Wayne Jayes (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no coverage in independent sources whatsoever. Jinkinson talk to me 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Assuming good faith, the contnet should be verifiable, even if not verified. Efferctively this is a small denomination in Australia. It claims to have several parishes. In US the denomination has 10,000 adherents: small but not insignificant. It is clearly not a matter of self-appointed titles. Unfortunately, we do not know how large it si in Australia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Even if the topic is notable, and there seemed to be some coverage in Gbooks, without any inline citations, the article requires a complete rewrite. There is also BLP material that lacks inline citations that needs to be removed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I figure there's room for some detail on the organisation of the denomination somewhere, but WP:V is a problem and having such detail on the organisation of a small schismatic church is probably WP:UNDUE as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:BLP1E is not applicable to someone who purposefully sought out media attention, such as by participating in a national, notable pageant. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jevon King[edit]

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

Notable for only one event per WP:1E. Suggest possible redirecting to that event. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While in principle I agree with Kudpung, by precedent, a person who has won an national title in a notable pageant and will go on to represent her country in an international pageant like Miss Universe is considered sufficiently notable for such a stub article. The article in itself is basic and very appropriate. Mabalu (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus practice has been that BLP1E is not a suitable basis for deleting the article of a person who has won a notable award or honor. (Failing the GNG could be.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is coverage of this subject truly limited to a single source? If the most we can say about this person can be reduced to a single short sentence (due to a lack of coverage from reliable third party sources) then I really question why do we have a separate article for this person at all. Silverfish8088 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a wholesale attack on the articles of individual Miss Universe contestants. Yet they all, individually receive immense courage at the pagent, which is essentially a press event. As I started looking into this, I found major media, LA Times, Las Vegas Sun, Seattle P/I doing individual photo articles on these contestants during the patent. Yeah, its not exactly deep investigative journalism to put pretty women in your newspaper, but it doesn't hurt the bottom line. And there are lots of sites that devote a lot of attention to each nominee. Her name comes up on sources of varying levels of reliability all over the world right now. To pick on this one because the pagent hasn't happened yet is a rush technicality. In track and field where I do the majority of my content, we have virtually unknown athletes place at the national championships qualifying them for a major international championship team. It would be a ridiculous attack on those athletes in the interim between the qualification and the major press coverage we know they will receive at the championship. This short sighted attack ignores what she will do later this year. It is not WP:CHRYSTAL because by her current status, even if she were not to actually appear, she would achieve (possibly greater) notability by the coverage of her absence. And finally, unless the NOM has some greater insight into the press coverage of Trinidad and Tobago than is otherwise stated, are we on the ground there? What kind of national coverage is she getting, there? Within that sphere, these are national heroes. Wholesale, these are bad faith noms and each of these AfDs should be rejected in an equally wholesale fashion. Trackinfo (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LifeCell International[edit]

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

Promo piece for a company of dubious notability. Reference list comprised almost entirely of press releases. Article author has repeatedly removed advert tag from article, even earning a short block for his efforts. --Finngall ^talk 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - The reference(s) from Business-Standards (www.business-standard.com/article/companies/lifecell-to-raise-rs-46-crore-via-pe-110122300064_1.html ) is/are reliable! but I am not sure about Financial Express (healthcare.financialexpress.com/201104/market13.shtml). CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite peristent attempts by numerous editors to de-spam the article, it has remained essentially promotional in character throughout its life. In answer to the one reason so far given for keeping, being reliable is only one part of the requirements: sources must also give sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. The linked article from "Business Standard" (not "Business-Standards") is merely an announcement that Life Cell International was planning to try to raise money, most of it for "brand building", a smaller part of it to pay cost of planned research. That does not really show notability. Another reference to Business Standard is likewise a mere announcement of Life Cell International's planned work. Checking through the references, I see press releases, at least one self-described "advertorial", other pages on sites which are either clearly not independent or else of doubtful independence, and also several dead links. There are references to pages on web sites the "about us" pages of which describe themselves in such terms as "the authoritative voice of the media, marketing and advertising community in the country" and "committed to creating brands that enable knowledge sharing and business collaboration", which is really marketing-speak for saying that the site exists to publicise and promote information about the businesses covered. Trying to assess the references is not helped by the fact that there are duplicate copies of the same reference, and different references with the same titles. However, it is clear that the substantial majority of the references are of no value whatsoever for the purpose of showing notability of the kind required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and looking at the small minority of references that might be of some value, the sum total of information does not amount to substantial coverage. If this is the best that has been achieved by a concerted effort over nine months by single-purpose editors battling to try to prove notability which has been questioned, it does not give much faith in the business's notability. Add to that the promotional nature of the article, and the case for deletion is, in my view, convincing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per User:JamesBWatson's analysis of the existing sourcing and separate searches under both the firm's current name and pre-2008 name (Asia Cryo-Cell Private Ltd) turning up no evidence of attained notability. (Note that there is also a LifeCell part of Kinetic Concepts, which appears unrelated to this firm.) AllyD (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2011[edit]

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

List of number-ones of a dubious and unreliable Media Traffic chart, also listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Widr (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 21:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2014[edit]

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

List of number-ones of a dubious and unreliable Media Traffic chart, also listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Widr (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To the extent that this is regurgitating a particular chart, I see no evidence that that chart itself enjoys notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above arguments, and also, this seems to be written a bit like an advertisement for the URLs linked in the article. Certainly it at least has a bit of a promotional tone to it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kolb[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor and county official, with no reliable source coverage to get him past WP:NPOL — the only reference cited here is a dead link which lists the subject as its author and was apparently hosted on the website of one of his colleagues, which is therefore a primary source. Further, the article's content mostly boils down to a bulleted list of municipal committees that he's been on, thus shading into résumé territory, and contains such enlightening insights into his career as “I still do my chores every day,” says Mr. Kolb. “Each morning before I come to work, I feed the cattle.” I'm willing to withdraw this if the article's quality and sourcing can be beefed up significantly, but under 2014-vintage sourcing and notability standards he can't keep an article in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find numerous news stories ~~and a detailed biography~~(stroke per Bearcat's comment). Some has been added to the article.@Bearcat:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "detailed biography" is just a reprint of Wikipedia content, and thus isn't a valid source under WP:CIRCULAR. As for the others, find me some reliable sources — community weeklies like the Brampton Guardian and the Caledon Citizen don't cut it, because we deprecate locally distributed community weeklies as not being widely distributed enough to demonstrate that a person belongs in an encyclopedia. And kindly note that I said the article's basic quality needed some pretty significant adjustment too — we don't care whether he feeds his cows or not, for starters. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has enough significant news coverage for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has significant news coverage where? Again, the Brampton Guardian and the Caledon Citizen don't meet our reliable sourcing standards — community weeklies would be valid for additional confirmation of facts after you'd added enough major-daily (Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Hamilton Spectator, etc.) coverage to get him past GNG, but community weeklies are not widely distributed enough (or readily consultable if we ever need to reverify what the source said) to satisfy GNG if they are the main or only sourcing in the article. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor local politician with local coverage. Nothing of the level to make him encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 02:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a local politician with the usual local coverage. There's nothing to show he meets any notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a mayor of a small town is not enough to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN and all of the coverage seems to be routine local coverage that you'd find in any town. Papaursa (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon reading the guidelines, it clearly fails a pass, so to speak. --75 * 23:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have a sufficient elected political status to clear the Special Notability Guideline for politicians and does not pass GNG independently of his political role. Carrite (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are strong, policy-based arguments on both sides. Several editors feel that Everts has "sufficiently significant" coverage to meet the general notability guideline, while other editors disagree that he meets GNG, and note that he fails baseball-specific notability guidelines. Regardless of the off-topic arguments as to creating players on first-round draft choices, there is no distinguishing argument on either side that tips the proverbial scale, and as such, I find there is no consensus for deletion at this time, but also no unequivocal consensus to keep. Go Phightins! 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Everts[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player. Never made it to majors, nothing in career particularly outstanding that would pass GNG. Wizardman 12:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be enough to keep (I'm undecided at the moment) but it's important to note that there is some coverage: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll say keep. After looking through it, I think it's just enough to pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fringe GNG, but being the fifth overall pick and a top 100 prospect numerous times makes him notable for me.--Yankees10 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – career minor leaguer and fading prospect is not notable enough to meet GNG. Could always resurrect the article in the future, in the unlikely event he makes it to MLB. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Muboshgu and Yankees10. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor league players are not generally considered notable unless they have some unusual notability beyond the typical coverage of their careers. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. People like this are why I don't like the practice of automatically creating articles for first round draft picks.. This guy became a career minor leaguer who is now playing in the independent leagues... will never make the Majors and has done nothing especially notable in the minors. Sources cited above are all routine coverage that minor leaguers tend to get from industry press. Spanneraol (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Minor leaguers aren't automatically presumed to be notable as Major Leaguers are, but if they have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG they are as notable as anyone else who meets that criteria. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Only coverage is local and/or routine sports reporting. Nothing to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in Baseball America is hardly "routine." Not many people get a write up like that in a publication like that. And CBS is hardly local and he gets a full paragraph devoted to him in that link. And the "local" coverage encompasses Houston to Denver to Fredricksburg to New Jersey and New York. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley Magpies[edit]

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

I could not establish that this is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AFL Britain. Can be verified to exist but I can't see any significant coverage, which is unsurprising for an Aussie rules team in the UK. Plausible search term though, so worth having a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think redirect to AFL Britain would be a good idea. It's a sports club notable enough, just because Aussie rules isn't a popular sport in England that should not mean it should be deleted, there's a plenty of clubs in Category:Australian rules football clubs in England
- Response What part of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG do you think it meets? Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to response - it's mentioned frequently when discussing the beginnings of Aussie rules in England, took a few seconds in a google search t find mentions of them ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5], satisfying all of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Some common sense has to be applied - just because the article is a stub doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, plus there's not a lot on the history of Aussie rules in England anyway. Furthermore the club was founded and folded years before regular use of the internet, so of course it's harder to find mentions of the than some other defunct clubs.

^ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/australian-rules-football-clubs-in-england-including-hephaestus-books/1110786391?ean=9781244909571
^ http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=0-6965-0-0-0&sID=130253
^ http://www.afllondon.com/about
^ http://www.worldfootynews.com/staticpages/index.php/England
^ http://worldheritage.org/articles/Thames_Valley_Magpies

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry Parental Controls[edit]

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

This is a puff piece created by blocked spammer User:Sentryparentalcontrols. The puff piece is about some software. I am unconvinced that the software was ever notable. Worse yet, the company doesn't appear to sell the software anymore.

Software is created. Spammers spam Wikipedia to advertise the software. The software is discontinued, and fades away, like smoke dispersing into the wind. But the Wikipedia article remains until someone deletes it. It's time for us to delete the article.

Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and/or per WP:IAR.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't find out whether it's still sold or not - Amazon returns 'not currently available' or something like that. But the US Federal Trade Commission filed a suit against it (privacy, deceptive selling practices) and that issue has coverage in two books, I added those as refs in the article along with two FTC site refs. Two book mentions ("enduring coverage"), the coverage of the FTC suit, and the Daily Telegraph article suffice for GNG, as I see it. Novickas (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Novickas, for adding the FTC info. However, most of the article is still promotional, like the "must have" part. If the FTC section could be fitted into Computer_surveillance then this article could be a delete LaMona (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea...but I don't see any section in Computer_surveillance, as it's currently written, that it would fit into. There do seem to be a fair number of articles out there about consumer surveillance software [21]. (It needs a section on that, no? But I'm not up to creating it.) Most of them address completely inadvertent surveillance. Like this [22]. I'd support a Redirect if someone does expand the Computer Surveillance article to include a section where someone could reasonably put ref'd info about this product. A redirect preserves the article and its refs. But it doesn't make any sense without a dedicated section about it in the target article. I don't know how often Merge outcomes are affirmed at AFD and I wonder how often the merged material then ends up getting lost. So, pending the inclusion of the referenced material, which I see as worthwhile, into some other article, I'd prefer to keep it. Novickas (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while it was briefly covered in the trade, it doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. I'm unaware of specific software criteria, but think it's borderline at best. A redirect to its industry might be warranted. StarM 02:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 22:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Entity[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking non-trivial secondary support. References are mostly listing or brief mentions. Fails notability and associated guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (music), Criteria for musicians and ensembles §2, which states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. This includes genre-specific charts.", to keep the article. The ranking was @Beatport, which appears to be a main source for this type of music genre. I also like to mention that the user reddogsix, repeatedly filed speedy deletion requests on said article, even after his first request has been undone by an administrator. In addition, there have been three editors contributing to the article, since creation. prokaryotes (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does not appear that Beatport is an independent entity. The site describes them as, "Beatport is the largest music store for DJs in the world." It appears their ranking of DJ's is based on downloads from their site. Not exactly a national music chart. Perhaps others can chime in here about the validity of Beatport in this instance to support WP:NM. reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since national music charts do not include the related music genre, the emphasis is on "This includes genre-specific charts." In addition, he had so far 8 entries into the Top10 and one release was ranked 1st in the overall rankings. prokaryotes (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is clear it is a "genre-specific charts." What is not clear is if it is an independent national chart. If this is not independent, the number of items on it is irrelevant.reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In what way are "national music charts" considered independent? To my understanding, sales count. prokaryotes (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Touché let's see what others say here. reddogsix (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Btw. the same rules as for other online music sales platforms, such as iTunes, Amazon Prime etc, should be acknowledged here. prokaryotes (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, no. Popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. Additionally, National charts are a combination of sales and polling. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted. J 1982 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 'This includes genre-specific charts' note appears to have been added to the guideline without first gaining consensus, so that argument's debatable. There is a list of recognised charts at Wikipedia:Charts#Recommended charts and the Beatport one is not on this list, and is not a country's national chart, so I would suggest that it is discounted here. --Michig (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, it does meet the general guidelines for suitable charts, since Beatport is a IFPI affiliate, and it covers sales. prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But not a "not a country's national chart." Where do you see that being an IFPI affiliate is a criteria for acceptable chart? reddogsix (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What appears to be the latest report, from 2011 (see above PDF link), and has cites of Beatport to several countries. Re reddogsix, see this chapter regarding the guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Charts prokaryotes (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, I see what you are talking about, but (and sorry to be a pain) since the ranking appears to be only taken from one source (beatport.com) the second item, "It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources" is not met. reddogsix (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the multiple sources relates to "broadcast outlets" (which makes sense). In addition the bottom related link cites Beatport with iTunes and Spotify as a major distributor of digital music. Only because the graph wasn't updated with Beatport, shouln't mean we should execlude Beatport Charts, especially so when Beatport can be considered one of the few distributors offering a PsyTrance music chart. prokaryotes (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established per Criteria for musicians and ensembles §5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).", He released one album on Yellow Sunshine Explosion and another on BEN Records, both labels are around over a decade, and also many EP's on IONO, all three labels can be considered part of the gold standard of this indie genre and feature many DJ's, which are independently notable. prokaryotes (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example of other notable DJ's from these labels, include ATMA (electronic musician) (YSE). website http://yellowsunshineexplosion.com/liveacts.php and http://www.plusquam-records.net/category/planet-ben/profile-planet-ben-records/ IONO Records (http://www.ionomusic.com/) features many of the most successful Progressive Trance artists from Germany, Israel and many other countries, who reguarly play on the main stages at indie music festivals around the world. prokaryotes (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related[edit]

The Indie Musician's Guide To Digital Distribution prokaryotes --(talk) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines --prokaryotes (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has not charted on a countries national chart, Beatport charts are BADCHARTS. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No pass on WP:MUSIC#5. Lacks evidence of either label having many independently notable performers. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG. Reliable secondary sources are not present in the article or online. The article also fails criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Beatport is not a national music chart and shouldn't be treated as such. Versace1608 (Talk) 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Versace1608, but the article meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, if you argue that the other label performers are not notable, you suggest that the entire genre isn't, since those performers are at the top of said genre (Progressive/PsyTrance). (per Bookings, Sales), and yes, many have coverage in reliable sources - for instance Protonica (i.e. http://www.nw-news.de/owl/kreis_minden_luebbecke/stemwede/stemwede/11224295_Irgendwie_ist_alles_anders.html). --prokaryotes (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of coverage of Protonica in that link - "Sunday, 17.12 clock: The first festival-goers break down and make their way home. I'll stay until early evening and watch me the final sets of "Cubixx" and "Protonica", then it goes for me home." (Machine translation). Trivial coverage, does nothing to demonstrate notability of anyone. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was just one example, there are many reviews and articles about Protonica, search for "Protonica trance review". --prokaryotes (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you supply such a terrible example? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme, you did not researched the various artists, since many have coverage, check out "Protonica", "Egorythmia" or "Ritmo". --prokaryotes (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protonica, Egorythmia, Ritmo. 3 is not many. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many artists do you suggest i have to mention - see above record label links to get more names - most of the names have coverage in the related media, check out ManMachine for another example, there are many indie related articles/reviews on this artist. --prokaryotes (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable ones. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Prokaryotes:. The subject of this article is simply not notable. Sonic Entity hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources. Your claim that he meets the fifth criteria of WP:MUSICBIO is inaccurate. I agree that Iono Music has been around for more than a few years. However, the roster of artists Iono Music houses are not independently notable. As a matter of fact, Iono Music isn't a notable record label. (Being around for a long time doesn't equate to notability). A Google search of the label fails to establish notability. FYI: Notability is not inherited. The Progressive/PsyTrance genre may be notable, but that doesn't mean Sonic Entity is. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Progressive/PsyTrance scene is dominated by a few labels, there are a few Israel labels, some oldschool labels. But in recent years, many of the main-stage artists are from Iono, and this is basically the first address when it comes to this kind of music, even for many Israel artists. You won't find a major related festival without these artists, the major compilations feature them and the related charts. For instance, another artist, "Side Effect" http://cttp.co.za/interviews/side-effects-iono-music-interview Yes, there is hardly any coverage in the main-stream media of these artist, and if only briefly. But all the independent media covering this music genre write about them, thus mostly about releases, festival lineups or interviews. If you and duffbeerforme argue that this isn't enough, then i have not much to add. On the bottom line i do not understand what is so bad to have this article, it won't hurt anyone, and it certainly has some credibility established. Cheers.--prokaryotes (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, there is hardly any coverage in the main-stream media of these artist, and if only briefly" drives home my point. Having significant coverage in the main stream media establishes notability. The independent media coverage that discusses Sonic Entity in detail needs to be added to article. The references currently in the article doesn't do that. Because of this, the notability of Sonic Entity is questionable. If you can add reliable sources to the article, I will change my decision. Versace1608 (Talk) 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, though as a side-note i may add articles on Protonica and/or Iono, which are better covered in the media - i think i can establish notability there. If we going to delete this (SE) article, is it possible to re-create it from current content (once more RS emerges), or can i save it on my user pages, or do you suggest to save the content offline?. Thanks. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an entertainment historian I cannot find sources sufficient on mainstream searches or even in data bases meant only for researchers such as myself to validate notability. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. The fact that the record labels have the subject on them does not make the subject notable. I cannot find any notables associated with those labels. The record labels may have a hint of notability and if anything this artists should be redirected and included into an article about the labels. Sorry, but this may even fall under WP:TOOSOON--Canyouhearmenow 13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demet Muftuoglu[edit]

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

This article is terribly written and the subject is not notable. There are several issues with this article the greatest of which is that it lacks any citation whatsoever (this is a big issue when dealing with a BLP). Additionally, (before I removed it) there was a giant list of spam links which made the piece look almost entirely promotional. —Frosty ☃ 04:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be re written. Not up to wikipedia's standards.AERATBAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by AERATBAG (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written and lacks citations, but I found a ton of hits in a Google search. Here are some from the first page of search results... 1, 2, 3, 4. Nor did I do any searching in Turkish. This is just the English. I have a high degree of confidence that the subject passes WP:BASIC and arguably WP:CREATIVE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE completely irrelevant and not notable and a terrible piece of self promotional advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expect at least some attempt to be made to cite information to a reliable source. This could be reverted to a draft but it does not meet quality standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been stubbed, removing the promotional aspects and is more than adequately sourced to meet WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT It should be noted that Wikipedia cleary says 'trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Did you actually bother to look at the sources? If the sources currently cited are trivial, we might just as well hang it up. There isn't much that would pass GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has been stubbified, which removed promotional aspects of the content therein.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewritten stub's sources constitute significant coverage satisfying WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on the US news sources with her as the subject, though they don't impart a lot of info about her. There's likely to be sources in Turkish media too, but Turkish is a bit impenetrable to me! Sionk (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some more boographical info from the existing Turkish news source, which seems to be substantially about her. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and fluff. Advertising. If we keep, this will set precedent for anybody working as a consultant to have a page dedicated to them. 64.17.247.66 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Wikipedia must not become an advertising bible for fashion event publicists to promote their services. She seems like an event organizer. No sign of any serious contribution to Art. No art collection. And has not done any important or notable cultural work. 24.97.203.163 (talk)

Note to reviewing admin I am noticing a pattern of POV and borderline disruptive editing going on with the article followed by Delete !votes posted here by IPs. The comments attending the delete votes also demonstrate a lack of understanding of, or disregard for, the basic notability guidelines including GNG and BASIC. I am not sure who is behind it but there appears to be a concerted effort to get this article deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable enough to have a page dedicated to her here. 64.134.100.90 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is starting to smell like a locker room. The socks seem to be all over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both the IP64's seem to stem from the same location and internet provider, indicating they are likely to be the same person !voting twice. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - only one of the sources (W, the "bible" of the fashion industry) currently cited in the article is a reliable source. The others (The Weekly Standard, blogs, social media) are not reliable, as they push opinion over fact, are edited anonymously, and/or are paid for. The Style piece found by User:Ad Orientem could be used to save this article. If we could find and add in even one more good source, this would make it over the notability line. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Attenborough[edit]

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

If John wasn't the brother of two very famous siblings, I doubt he would even have had an obituary article in his local paper. As a manager for Alpha Romeo this is a quite normal (though worthy) career, hardly of great note. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. It's not our role to question the reasons why the sources cover the subject in such detail. Andrew (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still our job to question whether there is any substance to the coverage. Sionk (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided pass WP:SIGCOV and so we have adequate substance to support an article. Andrew (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why an article that has been on this site since 2012 should be nominated for deletion just because someone noticed the article on the day the man's brother died.--Maarten1963 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, articles that don't get noticed generally don't get nominated at AfD. It's a strange argument for keeping it, all the same. Sionk (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Take away his brothers and he's simply a motoring executive. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with motoring executives? The subject was a managing director and so of high rank. We have numerous other subjects of this sort - see category:Chief executives in the automobile industry, category:People in the automobile industry and category:Corporate executives in the automobile industry. To say that such people are intrinsically less worthy than actors and directors does not seem to be a neutral POV. Andrew (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is true that he is really of interest only because of his siblings people referencing them may well want information on the third brother. Therefore it should stay. Sarah1923 25/8/2014

Delete Libstar is spot on, notability is not inherited. I don't see how being a motor industry executive is, in this case, notable. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he has two illustrious brothers is noteworthy in itself. It may be of significant interest to people what the third brother did. Additionally he did have an obituary in the newspapers and the sources demonstrate notability.

Keep His family notwithstanding, his professional life as the national head of Alfa Romeo and his position at Mann Egerton merits an article. Coinmanj (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTINHERITED. Every reference I find prominently mentions his brothers. There are only two newspaper articles about him specifically. In one, he is "in the shadow of his famous family" and "has spent a lifetime trying to stay out of the limelight." The other's just a relatively short obituary in a small newspaper (circulation 33K). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the subject of substantive coveragee, merely a brother. Hekerui (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. NPOV. With two famous brothers, our readers may want to know more about him, so why not provide it? Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "our readers may want to know more about him, so why not provide it?"... why not provide it in the relevant personal life/family section? WP:NOTINHERITED again! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave well alone and provide it just as we do? Notice that over 40,000 readers looked at the page yesterday - a huge number which makes it one of our most popular pages currently. If it works, don't fix it! Andrew (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typical few days, quite clearly, Richard Attenborough got 400,000 views! The views for John Attenborough are normally a tiny fraction of the overal views for his brothers. For example the David Attenborough article alone normally gets around 2000 views a day, Dickie got 1500, John got around 100. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still that is a considerable number of views. About 6000 people a month would miss it, based on January of this year. On popularity alone it should be kept, it seems daft to delete a page with such popularity. Also managing director of Mann Egerton deserves a mention. Mrjulesd (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for a WP:INHERITED notability, because no doubt a small proportion of people interested in his brothers will be curious to click his bluelink. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. I'm not arguing on behalf of his relationship to his brothers. I'm arguing on behalf of the popularity of this page, as well as his career. There is a subtle difference I feel you've overlooked. Popularity of pages I feel should make the subject notable. It suggest public interest. Public interest makes subjects notable. Also his career makes him notable, IMHO. Mrjulesd (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're effectively saying that, because he has a Wikipedia page, he's notable. I'm saying he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page, in which instance any Wikipedia page views would cease and extinguish his inherited notability. Sionk (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm saying (a) there seems to be public interest in him (b) his career is notable. You said "I'm saying he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page, in which instance any Wikipedia page views would cease" that's true of any page on wikipedia. Mrjulesd (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His job as Alpha Romeo Manager makes him notable. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alfa Romeo isn't a big manufacturer (64K total in Europe in 2013), and sales in the UK would be a fraction of that, and manager isn't a high-profile job. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no notability criterion which gives automatic notability for having an executive role for a car manufacturer. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the user who created this article in 2012. Of course, I am aware that this doesn't mean anything. I'm just informing everyone. But I think the page should be kept for this reason: although his career, his relation to his brothers, and the popularity of the page are not strong arguments individually for keeping the page, I think that, if you combine all three reasons (popularity of the page, relation to his brothers, and his career), then it adds up to a pretty good case for notability. As an analogy, there was recently a song that was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the United States, despite not being #1 in airplay, sales, or streaming. However, the fact that it did moderately well in all three categories allowed it to reach the #1 spot on the chart. Likewise, although John Attenborough's famous brothers, his career, and the popularity of the article are not good reasons for keeping the article, if the three of them are combined, it creates an impressive case for inclusion. So I vote Keep. The cumulative effect of the aforementioned three factors has earned this man notability on Wikipedia, at least in my opinion. SuperHero2111 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED does not call for us to discount or second-guess sources satisfying GNG requirements simply because we don't believe a subject should be notable. Cf almost every article subject including "Kardashian" in the title. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. I think the purpose of WP:NOTINHERITED is it is an argument to AVOID in notability discussions, not a basis for denying WP:GNG. Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by brothers alone Rotovia (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all things being equal, being COO of Rolls-Royce must count for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Whelan (writer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television and radio producer with no strong claim of notability that would get him past WP:NMEDIA — and relying almost entirely on primary and namecheck sources, with the few sources that are substantively about him not being sufficient in number to give him a WP:GNG pass. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be significantly beefed up, but this as written ain't enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Note also that User:Stevens6668 attempted yesterday to remove the AFD template from the article and to simply blank this discussion entirely. The fact that a brand new editor with no prior contribution history honed straight in on those kinds of edits, as his first Wikipedia contributions ever, strongly implies conflict of interest to me — so this page and the article will need to be monitored in case they happen again. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Source from Huffingtonpost, Toronto Star Newspapers, Yahoo Finance and others seems to be notable. While googling for the subject, it was clear that he had press coverage and a National Newspaper column. He is producer of first crowdfunding television show in North America seems to pass notability. My vote will be keep for him.Ireneshih (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post: article written by the subject himself, thus a primary source which cannot confer notability. Toronto Star: brief article which doesn't verify anything that would get him past WP:NMEDIA at all (producing a local TV show not being a claim that satisfies that.) Yahoo Finance: reprint of a press release from his own company, distributed via Canada NewsWire — thus a primary source which cannot confer notability. Number of sources in this article which actually get him past GNG as written: zero, because every last one of them is primary sourcing and/or insubstantial coverage that doesn't support any claim of notability that would satisfy any of our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ireneshih's comments compel me to believe that there's plenty out there that make him notable, it's just up to one of us to actually include that in there. Her comments alone show that he passes WP:BASIC Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence of notability, and would need to see some before I change that delete opinion. He is a graduate. So what? Executive producer of a local radio talk show. So what? Is there anything notable in his writing - nothing in the sources suggest there is. Does one crowdfunding make an "entrepreneur"? And if so, so what? It is not as if he initiated the first ever crowdfunded TV program. There is no suggestion of notability in the resulting program, only in its funding route. The self-penned things in the sources do not count towards notability, nor does suffering from trichotillomania (proof I actually did look at the cited sources!), or being a member of a monthly underwear club (what on earth is that "source" in the article for? [23]), or being a "quintessential millenial living in downtown Toronto who will do just about anything to entertain his readers" (even if he does it in new underwear). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My vote is for a keep but I have to agree with a lot with what is said above. A lot needs to be choppped out. The graduate and local radio talk show additional is meaningless and non notable. However, the notability does exist with the television show as it is the first crowdfunding TV show in Canada and part of a booming phenom. 40+ secondary sources on this. The connection with Rob Ford could also give it a stick.

The column is actually the more notable item as it had mass syndicated across Canada along with radio/tv appearances by the author to promote- featured at Toronto Fashion Week ([24]) Radio ([25]) TV ([26])

This should be two-three sentences tops sfichner66 (talk) 24:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have very high standards for writers and producers, and he doesn't make the grade. There are often multiple writers for TV and radio shows, and producers are, to be blunt, run of the mill: anybody who raises money for (or gives to fund) a TV show, film, or play is technically a "producer". On the other hand, actors, directors, artists, and editors are almost always professionals, or aim to be some day. While's he's in or wrote many well-sourced articles, there is no significant coverage of him as a subject in any reliable source, so he fails our basic test. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gary Goddard. Partial merge, see discussion. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway 4D[edit]

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

Unusual article about cancelled film. Can't see how the article context can be notable, it's been cancelled? scope_creep 23:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (partial merge) for now to the film's writer/director Gary Goddard where available sources can be used to mention it in context to his career. We can allow allow a return if or when ever completed or if it garners enough attention to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Of course, if never made, it could be considered notable for its failure to be made. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, partial merge as stated by Schmidt. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 22:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Manchester[edit]

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

WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV ZaphodsCatwalk (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attempting to take this article down?--Youngdrake (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not support notability. Youngdrake talk See: WP:BLP LaMona (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I think he is notable. while he may be less notable in the US he is well known in Pakistan. --Youngdrake (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is properly sourced and has been mentioned in a country wide news source. Youngdrake (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Celebrity has been established in two countries for works of charity, subject is notable.--Bigswagproductions (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) — Bigswagproductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's just not anything here to substantiate notability; WP:CSD#A7 is somewhat out of the question because of his assertion of his tour in Pakistan, but that's all really keeping this article from being an A7. Sourcing isn't even close, and there's not really anything else to support the notability of this individual. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of New Zealand radio station callsigns#FM stations 2. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 22:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits FM96[edit]

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

DOes not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for over 6 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a lot of work and may end up as a merge, but unless someone else in the NZ project has time then unlikely to be updated for a while. NealeFamily (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Might fulfill WP:BCAST, but need appropriate trimming and sourcing. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced in 6 years. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) redirect as per User:Joe Decker. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Stuartyeates (talk · contribs). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_New_Zealand_radio_station_callsigns#FM_stations_2 based on the slightest hint of WP:V via [27]. The idea that we can make an article from that single source is, frankly, ludicrous. Second choice for a redirect target would be ZM_(New_Zealand)#95-9_ZM_Hawkes_Bay_.28Originally_96ZM.29. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Joe Decker. Not a lot here for notability, but could be a plausible search term. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that the IP !vote for delete doesn't qualify how the subject fails WP:CRIME, and just cites a section of a guideline page. The notion of the subject only being notable for one event (WP:BLP1E) has also been challenged in the discussion. Overall, though, this close is on the "weak keep" side, due to the small number of total participants after two relistings. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dena Thompson[edit]

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

Don't know if it's notable. Certainly doesn't seem to be known outside Uk. Checked Hindustan Times, Washington Post and Australian Herald Sun, which have no mention. Don't know what to make of it. Certainly fails WP:GEOSCOPE and seems to pass WP:DIVERSE and WP:BLP1E. Such a weird thing. True humanistic parasite. scope_creep 17:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

She was included in an episode of the US documentary Deadly Women, so she isn't only known in the UK ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 (talk • contribs) 22 August 2014

^ http://adriangatton.net/2012/08/31/196/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRIME.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a lot of UK-based articles that aren't known outside of the UK... doesn't mean we should get rid of them, Anyway Keep as passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG which it covers.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. WP:GEOSCOPE is part of WP:Notability (events), not WP:Notability (people), though in any case this person has received coverage in national media (BBC News, Telegraph, Mirror), not just local. Coverage spans several incidents over at least nine years so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Qwfp (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Competent man[edit]

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

Apparent original research. It reads like a misplaced TV Tropes entry, has been tagged as {{unreferenced}} since 2006 (!) without getting a single source, and I can find no reliable sources - the sources I can find all seem to be a result of citogenesis. Kolbasz (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A competent man knows how to find sources such as The Heritage of Heinlein or Harlan Ellison: The Edge of Forever. Andrew (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - agree that it seems like original research. Completely unreferenced article. No citations for the long list of names in the article as well. Parabolooidal (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but definitely improve. It's weak as is.Mzmadmike (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the fact that an article contains original research or that it was inadequately referenced were reason for deletion, a very large and significant fraction of the articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted. This article needs to be fixed, not deleted. This article should focus on the famous Robert A. Heinlein quotation, which can be very heavily referenced. Most of the other material, while probably accurate, is superfluous and mostly based upon the opinions of anonymous editors. One can walk into any bookstore or library and find references for the Heinlein concept. It is based upon The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, which is both a separately published Heinlein work and a part of the famous Heinlein novel, Time Enough for Love. (Both works were published in both hardback and paperback editions, and both have been in print since the 1970s.) Lazarus Long is one of the most well-known characters in all of science fiction literature, and significant enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article. X5dna (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most entries in the Stock characters template leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps it is time we went trhoguh them one by one and did a massive cleanup with all this TVTropes-esque content.--Coin945 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article badly needs to be split into two different articles: "Competent man" and "Competent man in fiction and popular culture" (This has been successfully done elsewhere in Wikipedia where the original article began as an unreferenced mess.) The article conflates any real person with a broad and deep skill set with a fictional stock character. The Heinlein quotation refers to real competent humans, while the remainder of the article essentially falsely asserts that such people do not exist in reality and proceeds to list a large number of fictional and cartoon characters. X5dna (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an essay without any references.--Rpclod (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the issue of whether we should have an article on this topic, deletion is out of the question because this is an obvious redirect to Competence (WP:R). James500 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. James500 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 22:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lovell Stanners[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor who does not pass WP:NPOL for the role, and without enough reliable sourcing to get her past WP:GNG instead. Full disclosure: I created this, at a time when Wikipedia's standards for the notability of mayors and the volume of sourcing required were considerably looser than they are in 2014. It made sense at the time — but by 2014-vintage standards, if all we have for reliable source coverage is "got married" and "was defeated in 2010", then what we have is not a keepable article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayors fail notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wouldn't seem to meet WP:GNG and the fact that the creator has nominated it for deletion says it all, really. As with a lot of these, higher office in the future or sustained coverage related to a particular policy might get this over the line. But I'm not convinced we're there at the moment. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wondering where there is a Wikipedia guideline which says that 'small town mayors are not notable'? My understanding is that the WP:GNG prevails over any guidelines about politicians, but even the WP:POLITICIAN guideline specifies that (2) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are considered notable. A browser search of national Canadian newspapers yielded major discussion here and discussion here and some discussion here mention here, several lines here, major discussion here. If one uses this search string, which includes the Owen Sound newspaper, there are about 50 articles on her; so in my view, she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for the notability of mayors is that the city has to have "regional prominence". It's not a hard and fast cutoff, because a smaller-town mayor can still get over the bar if the sourcing is really solid and a bigger-city mayor can still fail if the sourcing is for the birds, but the general consensus interpretation of "regional prominence" at AFD is that the city has to have a population at least in the 50K-100K range. Below that size of city, the article has to be really, really good as written, and cannot claim an automatic presumption of notability just because it might be possible to get it up to an idealized standard in the future. So I'd be more than happy to withdraw this if the actual article gets substantively improved before closure — but not just on the basis that improvement might be possible. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia guideline you can point us to about the 50K-100K rule? Btw, if the article stays, I'll fix it up later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia never writes specific arbitrary population-size cutoffs directly into its notability rules — the "50K rule" is a rough but not inviolable standard established by AFD consensus and precedent, not a matter of policy per se. As I explained above, mayors below 50K can get past GNG if you write and source the article really well, and mayors above 50K can fail GNG if you don't (e.g. if they serve in a place where the mayoralty is a purely ceremonial role that rotates automatically rather than being directly elected.) But below 50K, you're running a very real risk of failing to make a convincing case for notability if there isn't enough effort put into making the article good — it's not that a mayor can never have an article below 50K, you just have to put a lot more work into actively making the case for notability than you do for a bigger city's mayor. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One reference is a dead link and the other is to a Wikipedia article regarding an Ontario radio station.--Rpclod (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to a news item ("Mayor of Owen Sound to wed") that the radio station broadcasted — it links to the radio station's article because a reference is supposed to link to the Wikipedia article about the publisher of the reference if it has one to link to, not because the Wikipedia article itself is the reference. Our referencing does not have to be web-accessible; content broadcast via radio or TV is acceptable sourcing. It's not enough referencing, I said that right up front in the original nomination — but you're misunderstanding the basic nature of what that particular reference actually is, if you think the Wikipedia article itself is the citation. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE (Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.) and sources demonstrated by Tomwsulcer. Hardly will a person with 50 news articles be non notable.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a mayor doesn't pass WP:NPOL on the basis of the size of the city, then yes, you do have to actually provide enough sources to demonstrate that they actually, rather than theoretically, pass GNG — because even smalltown mayors who can be substantially sourced can still be deleted if the sources don't support enough substantive content to actually justify an article. The sources Tomwsulcer pointed out don't improve the case, because they're not substantive coverage of her, but merely namecheck her in passing in conjunction with issues (the name of an airport, the opening of a local hospice, the cost of the local rec centre, the death of a local woman she was friends with) that don't substantively strengthen a smalltown mayor's notability. So no, in some cases it still isn't enough to just say that some uncited sources exist — you need to prove that the sources you've found actually support an article substantive enough to satisfy GNG, and he hasn't adequately demonstrated that here. We specifically discount purely routine local coverage as evidence of passing GNG — if all you had to do to satisfy GNG was add proof that she'd been named in an "above an arbitrary cutoff" number of news articles in the local newspaper, then we'd have to keep an article about every president of a local PTA, every local business owner, every organizer of a church bake sale, every local fire marshal, on earth. The sources need to do more than just contain her name, but rather have to support substantive and meaningful content which demonstrates why she belongs in an encyclopedia (which none of the ones Tomwsulcer listed above do.) Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we disagree about the sense of significant coverage. The Wikipedia guideline says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Further, if any one source does not float your boat, then the Wikipedia guideline at WP:BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; clearly there are 50+ sources, none of them trivial mentions, suggesting that this person easily passes the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage still has to support something genuinely substantive that we could actually add to our article. A news article quoting her on the death of a friend, for just one example, does not help us improve our article in any significant or properly encyclopedic way, and neither does quoting her on the cost overruns of a non-notable local sports facility. She doesn't have to be the primary subject of every article that comes up, I didn't say that she did — rather, the test is whether or not the sources in question actually give us something useful and encyclopedic to say about her, and none of the ones you've provided do that. You could add 100 sources to the article, and it would still fail GNG if they were all piled directly on the statement that "Ruth Lovell Stanners is the mayor of Owen Sound" but none of them actually supported saying anything more substantive about her than that fact by itself. It's not a question of the raw number of sources you can add, but one of how much actual substance they do or don't allow us to actually add to our article. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Take this source; it says she is opposed to naming a second airport after the same person; as a prominent mayor, her view might change the outcome of that naming decision; I think that is definitely substantive, but is that substantive enough for you? Take this source; it says she is concerned about a possible accident involving radioactive waste; I think this is substantive; why don't you think that is substantive? Or, this source; says she opposes a second bridge being built; it is substantive since her view will probably cause the second bridge not to be built. There are 50+ more of these references. So, I am trying hard to understand (substantively) and in good faith, what exactly your view of substantive is...--Tomwsulcer (talk)

On the airport: that ship's already sailed — go ahead, read up on Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport if you want to know how much of an impact she actually had on the decision. On the nuclear waste: all mayors are concerned about the possibility of industrial accidents in or near their city — it's part of the job description — so the question you need to answer is, what substantive thing did she do that enables us to say anything of encylopedic value? On the bridge: she's not the mayor anymore (she lost reelection in 2010), and the project is still in development. The significance and encyclopedic relevance of her opposition, therefore, being...what, exactly? In all three cases, it boils down to "mayor expresses concern over an issue she has no control over, changes nothing, the end". And as I already explained, your 50+ other Google sources are all of the "cost overrrun at non-notable local sports facility" or "friend died, mayor commented" variety — so no, I'm not the one whose view of substantive is skewed here, because the sources simply don't give us anything notable or distinctive or encyclopedic to say about her besides "smalltown mayor does her job". Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is not important to you or me but it is important to Ontarians who live there, and there is plenty of media coverage indicating this importance. I have learned to try not to revamp articles that are on the chopping block, but I feel confident I could do a solid job with this one if it stays, adding substantive material like building a $38 million recreation center, or being instrumental in getting a new hospice, or reducing development fees, or purchasing a vacant railroad station to transform it into a business to improve the harbour area, or restoring a historic engineering building, and there are 50+ of these references. You and I may not think having a leash-free dog park is substantive, but the residents of Owen Sound -- particularly dog owners -- might disagree. Where I live, there is no place where dogs can run free. Or, being a Canadian who needs to be in hospice. It all depends on one's context, but the Wikipedia rule for WP:Politician says elected local official ... can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. And that's it. She meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance to the locals has nothing to do with whether a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not — if it did, our standards for city councillors would be much looser than they are, because they're locally important too. But AFD has always deprecated exclusively local claims of importance which were based exclusively on routine coverage in the local media (otherwise we'd have to keep articles about every president of a local PTA, every communications officer for every local SPCA, and on and so forth.) So "importance to people who live in her own city" doesn't help her case, if the city isn't large enough to get her past NPOL — in an international encyclopedia with a worldwide audience, we need a reason why someone in Singapore or Buenos Aires or Vancouver should be interested in reading about her. People in Owen Sound don't need a simple repetition of stuff they already know; the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform people who don't already know anything about her, not people who do — even pretty well-sourced articles about smalltown mayors have frequently been deleted at AFD if the article covered purely generic local issues, and didn't provide sufficient evidence that their notability extended beyond the exclusively local. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree, but thank you for explaining your position.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tom - she's received widespread notariety. Articles in the local paper set aside, we've got the Globe and mail, CBC, Canada.com, and a slew of others. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Widespread notoriety"? Where's this now? Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. My sense is that "'substantive coverage must (at minimum) come from a regional paper or organization and provide a major focus on the subject as the subject. The question is (usually) not about verifying information about the office - but is there "substantive" coverage of the life of the individual. Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the news pieces I found were all local news outlets referring to her candidacy or her marriage, save the one Globe and Mail article dealing with the airport naming issue. I don't see enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. PK T(alk) 13:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kerrigan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election — a claim of notability that does not satisfy WP:NPOL — with no particularly substantive claim that he'd already qualify for an article under any other inclusion rules. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but candidates are not entitled to keep campaign brochures on Wikipedia in the interim. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NPOL - Candidate and failed-candidate for non-national elections. His work assisting in campagnes does not make him noteworthy. I have some doubts about his work for the national Democratic party, but tend towards not noteworthy. -- Taketa (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep. Arguments below are convincing that there are enough sources to support relevance. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received significant coverage for his role as CEO of the Democratic National Convention ([28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]) and President of the 2013 Presidential Inaugural Committee ([35] [36]), as well as his campaign for Lieutenant Governor ([37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]). Meets GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a candidate's electoral campaign itself doesn't contribute to getting them past GNG. Media have a legal and ethical obligation to give "equal time" to candidates in elections in their local coverage area, so no candidate would ever fail GNG if coverage of the candidacy counted — but our inclusion rules for politicians dictate that, except in extremely rare special circumstances such as the international media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell, campaign coverage does not confer notability on a person who didn't already qualify for an article before the candidacy. For an unelected candidate, either sufficient notability was already there before they became a candidate or it doesn't exist until after they win the election — because for a candidate whose coverage derives from the candidacy itself, the article invariably ends up functioning as a campaign brochure (violating Wikipedia's content rules against advertising) rather than a true encyclopedia article about a topic of permanent long-term interest. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He received significant coverage in at least nine different news articles for two separate events (2012 convention and 2013 inauguration) before he was a candidate, so sufficient notability was already there before he became a candidate. Also, there is nothing in the notability requirements for politicians that says significant coverage for an unelected candidate has to come before the candidacy. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements for politicians specifically confer notability only on actual officeholders, and exclude unelected candidates for any office from being able to invoke NPOL for notability. Unelected candidates, rather, have to get past GNG, and AFD has a longstanding consensus that routine coverage of the candidacy itself cannot contribute to whether the person passes GNG or not — because all candidates in all elections always get media coverage. It's not a thing that some candidates get and others don't, such that some could pass GNG and others not; media are required to give coverage to all of the candidates. But since we're not a database of campaign brochures per WP:NOTADVERTISING, we simply cannot allow articles about all candidates in all elections — so the consensus established by countless past AFDs has been that candidates cannot get over GNG on the basis of campaign coverage if they didn't already have preexisting notability before they became candidates. Whether they've been formally codified in a notability rule or not, precedents established by AFD consensus, as documented at WP:POLOUTCOMES (see in particular the section about how unelected candidates are not viewed as having notability for the candidacy), still apply and are still binding unless you can make a credible case that he's actually become the Christine O'Donnell exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE news coverage applies to such things as announcements, planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, ect, not multiple in-depth articles about a candidate that appeared in reliable sources. Secondly, the article does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING because the information is "written in an objective and unbiased style" and all article topics are verified by independent, third-party sources. Thirdly, WP:POLOUTCOMES is not a policy, and therefore not "binding". Lastly, previous notability has already been demonstrated by the number of articles written about the subject before his 2014 campaign for Lieutenant Governor. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, see WP:ONLYESSAY — precedents at WP:POLOUTCOMES are binding unless you can make a credible case for why the article in question should be treated as an exception to it; the fact that it's not a "policy" does not mean that you're free to dismiss it as something we don't have to follow. Secondly, an article can be written "neutrally" and still fail WP:NOTADVERTISING; a campaign brochure about an unelected political candidate is practically the textbook example of how this is possible. And WP:ROUTINE coverage most certainly does include standard-issue "media covering a political campaign because it's their job to cover political campaigns" coverage — AFD has a longstanding precedent that a candidate has to explode into Christine O'Donnell territory (i.e. international media firestorm) to actually pass GNG just on campaign coverage alone. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES — This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. Therefore, precedents are not biding. WP:ONLYESSAY also states that essays and policies are not binding, as there are common sense exceptions to them. Instead of abiding by the letter of a precedent or creating your own standard of notability ("Christine O'Donnell territory"), look at the fact that multiple sources reliable cover the subject in detail in the course of more than one event. This alone makes the subject suitable for a stand-alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, absolutely, but the precedent does have to be respected until the consensus actually changes. And there has to be a substantive reason why any particular case should be treated as an exception to the precedent — the mere fact that something is an essay or guideline, rather than a policy, is not a valid reason to simply ignore it if there isn't a substantive reason why the specific case at hand warrants a specific exception to it. And the "Christine O'Donnell" test is not my own personal "alternate standard of notability", either — it's a longstanding consensus at AFD that coverage of a candidate's campaign can only contribute to notability if it happens to go significantly beyond the normal level of coverage that all candidates in all elections always get. O'Donnell is the textbook example that I refer to when it's necessary to clarify how that can happen — but since all candidates in all elections always get media coverage, if campaign coverage contributed to notability we'd never be able to delete any article about any candidate at all.

And the problem with the other roles with the political party's convention and the inaugural committee is that they're simply not roles that would be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia in the first place — not to mention that the convention leadership sources you provided above are mostly not about him per se, but merely mention his name in passing within coverage of the convention, while one of the inaugural committee sources is an entirely unsubstantive blurb and the other one is on a university's website rather than a media outlet, and thus contributes to notability in no manner whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources found by Hirolovesswords, Kerrigan is now the Democratic nominee for Lt. Gov. The coverage he will get will increase and he's likely to be the next Lt. Gov. Tiller54 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, per WP:CRYSTAL. There have been many elections over the years in which the candidate who appeared "likely" or "certain" to win actually lost, for one reason or another; there have been some elections in which the candidate died before election day; and there have been many elections in which the question of which candidate was likelier to win depended on which pundits you chose to believe. I'd have no objection to sandboxing this for future retrieval, if his victory's really that likely — but advance predictions about the likelihood of his eventual victory have no bearing on our inclusion rules, because advance predictions don't always pan out accurately. Bearcat (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he loses, there's more than enough here to meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martha won the nomination for governor so he will be her running mate, I do not see how he will not get additional publicity from it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that Mr. Kerrigan has won the primary and become the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in the general election, this article is no longer of dubious relevance. BigD527 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even a candidate in a general election doesn't qualify for an article just for being a candidate — a person has to win the office, not just run for it, to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bearcat is right that simply being the major party nominee in a statewide election does not confer notability, even for offices as high as the US Senate. Per WP:1E, that would be a redirect to the election article. But as Hirolovesswords pointed out, Kerrigan was notable for 2 other events prior to this election. Combined, the three events together make Kerrigan notable enough for his own article. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie marathon[edit]

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

This article is so desperate for something to say that it claims that television episodes qualify and that popcorn is an appropriate food. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article's potential trumps current state of article. The concept is notable.--Coin945 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was going to suggest merge/redirecting to binge-watching, but then that term seems to be more specifically targeted towards TV shows. There might be merit in making a single entry that discusses marathon viewing as a whole and redirecting both to that article. The concept of both are very, very similar - the only big difference is in whether it's applied to TV or movies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it is a notable enough concept, enough to where I think that the basic idea should be kept, albeit as a single article with TV binge watching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent - I agree with Coin945 that there is a whole lot of potential for the article. A quick Google search was all I needed to find stuff like "<Actor> Movie Marathon", "Halloween Movie Marathon", "Christmas Movie Marathon", "<Franchise> Movie Marathon". The thing is though, the current state of the article is absolute trash. It reads like a how-to, and a terrible one at that. The section on food says nothing more than popcorn. The article needs to start from scratch anyways as it currently contains no valuable information (does not even establish notability), so unless someone takes initiative to improve it during this debate, the article can probably be safely scrapped. mol uɐɯ 13:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete Were "movie marathon" a single word, we could put the bulk of this entry in wiktionary. I'm not convinced that there's an encyclopedic topic to cover here. Is there a history of movie marathons we should be covering? Are there sources which say more than "so and so is having a movie marathon for charity" or "thus and such channel is having a bond marathon"? Protonk (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Protonk: I did a quick Google search (see below) and answered your question with a resounding "yes". I urge you to reconsider your vote given the new information.--Coin945 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Del under WP:A11 (obviously invented) as concept appears to be made up, despite citations. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Haha I wish i made it up :P. Unfortunately I can't take that credit. Yahoo.com, EssentialKids, WhatCulture, Sydney Morning Herald, The Mercury, Philly, All Women Stalk, Daily Mail, MTV, Oprah.com, NylonMag, The AV Club, The Hollywood Reporter, Digital Spy, and Amnesty.org (among others) can though...--Coin945 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some more sources (in case I'm not being clear enough aboutt his article's notability): Planning Your Family Staycation: Fun Ideas for Your At-Home Summer Vacation, A Year of Programs for Teens, How to Plan a Movie Marathon For Kids & Teens, Plan a Classic Movie Marathon, Full Episode Schedule for FXX's Simpsons Marathon, Have a Movie Marathon with These Films About Pregnancy, The great Harry Potter viewing marathon (The Guardian), The Best Viewing Order for a Star Wars Marathon--Coin945 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See

Star Wars marathon
~~Marathon (television)~~ (merged into "Movie marathon")
~~Marathon (media)~~ ("Movie marathon" renamed "Marathon (media)")

Parabolooidal (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually improving the article The sources have been demonstrated. Now it's just a matter of someone actually stepping up and improving the article, rather than all of us chatting about it.--Coin945 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coin945. 174.91.75.150 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into binge watching. Similar enough subjects, and Coin's sources don't talk about movie marathons - they talk about shows. If we had sources specifically discussing marathons without discussing a show, then I may change my view. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge binge watching into Marathon (media) as a sub-topic, in this way all types of Movie and TV marathons are on the same page.--Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge binge watching into Marathon (media) as a sub-topic, per Gonnym and keep per Coin945. Now that the page is about marathon viewing as a whole, there's no true reason to have separate article. It's also a fairly notable concept as a whole, to the sourcing does need to be improved but this is a notable concept. It's been around for years and it's mentioned in a very, very wide variety of places. I'm very, very keen on using reliable sources to show notability and Coin945 and I have butted heads over this only a few months ago, but this is one of those instances where we have to apply the WP:COMMONSENSE aspect of "ignore all rules" and accept the trivial mentions and so on as usable to show how this concept is a well-known, notable aspect of the TV/movie/media world. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did we "butt heads"? My mind is blurry...--Coin945 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: It was only a little head butting over some kid's books. I can't bring up the book series title, but it was one of those things about history or something along those lines. I do remember that it was one of those series that got re-released under a few different titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories (book series)? Did taht book series have trivial mentions? I can't remember...--Coin945 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newly merged article still needs some work (restructuring, sources for the TV part) but it no longer meets the criteria for deletion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre[edit]

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

WP: MILL church Mr. Guye (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that I can find are self-published books.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think that historically this has been a significant church in its time. My recollection is that Ichthus Christian Fellowship grew out of Honor Oak, but I may be wrong. I note that the site is now in use by others, so that this is a historical article. I appreciate that the sources are not the best ones, but do we have reason to believe that they are inaccurate? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Peterkingiron: The article contains only one source, and I can't verify it. Hardly will this source be considered neutral, credible and sufficiently detailed for a comprehensive article. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should not expect to find everything important on-line! You will not have eben helped by my not getting the riught link - now corrected. And please login so that the rest of us know who you are. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- The fact that two people (one with WP bio-article) wrote critiques suggests to me that they tought it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the article, google searched and did a news search. There is nothing there which suggests notability. The article has a single reference which I can't find in any of the usual places, suggesting it is self published or perhaps some kind of pamphlet. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject ot later re-creation when more sources can be found. The problem that I have with the article is that it appears to be entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attila Karacs[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG. The only sources are the promotion he was fighting for.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep profile was created acording to rules of that time. Rules are changed but we can not just delete profile because of that. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his notability was never tested at an AfD and even if it was, articles are brought up at second AfDs all of the time. Papaursa (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent references and he also fails to meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We judge articles by the present rules designed to make Wikipedia usable in the 2010s, not the looser rules of the 2000s that lead it to suffer from a large number of articles on marginal figures and poorly developed or lacking articles on more important people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can not just piss on the articles tat were created acording to the rules at that time. Someone made effort to create it. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:58, 235 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone makes an effort to create every article. Are you claiming that therefore no article should ever be deleted?Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This kickboxer is really notable, do we want to lose all the data? Illovecoffee (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you were notable, you are notable. OMG...... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most known Hungarian kickboxer in history. He held some titles and fought in the K-1 and It's Showtime promotions. Against some big names. Craete p (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK and has no independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Karacs Attila was a champion that defeated Bregy, Quarteron and Vondráček. Illovecoffee (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, what does this article need in order to be kept? I can improve it, maybe Sun Tzu can also help. I am just saying, we kept a lower-ranked Priest West. Illovecoffee (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priest West met WP:KICK having fought for a WMC world championship.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karacs won the K-1 tournament in Hungary (2005). It was official, just saying. Illovecoffee (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find some reliable sources to back this up? That'll do the most help for you. Notability is established through coverage in third-party reliable sources; establishment of notability in these sources is the core of WP:N. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 14:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references are from websites controlled by the subject's promotion and hence cannot be deemed to be reliable. An online search shows videos and blogs but no reliable sources. Being talented does not mean being automatically notable; there are many talented accountants in the world that do not have Wikipedia pages.--Rpclod (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far there have been no policy based arguments for keeping this article. WP:ILIKEIT is not sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; According to prevous rules, kickboxer was notable if fought for k-1 or It's Showtime, Attila did it. profile was here according to the rules and should be kept. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:58, 03 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show what notability criteria he currently meets.Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what the previous criteria were, but he doesn't meet any of the current criteria and that's all that matters to me. Plus it's clear he fails GNG with no independent coverage.131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney franchises[edit]

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

These franchise articles are just simply an amalgamation or existing articles and other releases related to the topic without any indication of notability of the "franchise" themselves or backed up by independent coverage in reliable sources. Existing navboxes appear to serve a better purpose than these simplified summaries. The narrow focus of these to Disney for much broader topics such as Hercules and Tarzan makes one think these are just promotional venues for Disney and definitely creates some ambiguity over those creations/characters as a whole.Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add context to this discussion, these are the other franchise articles for Walt Disney Animation Studios films (plus the Pixar ones):--Coin945 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (franchise) (1937-present)
Fantasia (franchise) (1940-present)
Cinderella (Disney franchise)‎ (1950-present)
Alice in Wonderland (franchise) (1951-present)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (franchise) (1961-now)
The Jungle Book (Disney franchise) (1967-present)
Winnie the Pooh (Disney franchise) (1977-present)
The Little Mermaid (franchise) (1989-present)
Beauty and the Beast (franchise) (1991-present)
Aladdin (Disney franchise) (1992-present)
The Lion King (franchise) (1994-present)
Pocahontas (franchise) (1995-present)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (franchise) (1996-present)
Hercules (franchise) (1997-present)
Mulan (franchise) (1998-present)
Tarzan (franchise) (1999-present)
The Emperor's New Groove (franchise) (2000-present)
Atlantis (Disney franchise) (2001-present)
Lilo & Stitch (franchise) (2002-present)
Brother Bear (franchise) (2003-present)
Frozen (franchise) (2013-present)
Toy Story (franchise) (Pixar)
Monsters, Inc. (franchise) (Pixar)
Finding Nemo (franchise) (Pixar)
Cars (franchise) (Pixar)

Note that 3 of these don't exist and 1, The Emperor's New Groove (franchise), was deleted following an AfD. Also note that the author of these articles is not !voting to keep them but just informing the community that other stuff exists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops thanks for reminding me. I'll cross it out. When it comes to something like this, OtherStuffExists is an essential concept to ascribe to. These are essentially the exact same articles on diffrent Disney franchises. We have to compare them and examine the context of the franchises. Are some more notable than others? Is there a template that the articles should follow? Etc.--Coin945 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concept of something being more notable than something else on Wikipedia. It's either notable or not based on WP:N and each judged on its own merits. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fix: The assertion that "The narrow focus of these..." can easily be fixed by renaming the articles Disney's Hercules (franchise) and Disney's Tarzan (franchise) etc.--Coin945 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really doesn't help ascertain the notability of either franchise. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It clarifies the assertion that they are simply "promotional venues for Disney" by trying to claim credit for the intellectual property, showing that it is indeed a franchise based off someone else's work.--Coin945 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought it was self-evident that pretty much every film within the official Disney canon has been turned into a multimedia franchise.--Coin945 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But these articles do not assert the notability of the individual franchises at all. Where are the sources which discuss the franchise of each as a whole (not just specific parts like a ride at Disney World). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen (franchise), The Lion King (franchise), and Toy Story (franchise) serve as idyllic templates for the sorts of articles. Just because sources aren't in the others atm, it doesn't mean they don't exist.--Coin945 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Copyright violations created through copying information from other Wikipedia articles is being fixed up. Thanks @Moonriddengirl:.--Coin945 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Coin945 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the articles should be kept, because they are the only articles that include all of the media related to the original Disney movies in one place. These main franchise articles give a decent summary by type of media, year released, links to existing articles and redlinks for articles that could be created. The articles are similar to a "List of media related to XX movie", and thus do not need to be notable in and of themselves. Jllm06 (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific as I do not find any articles titled "List of media related to Foo" to which you refer? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The exact phrasing may be different, but here: List of Doraemon media, List of Bionicle media, List of Chocobo media, List of 24 media, List of Saw media, List of Tintin media, List of RahXephon media, List of The Flintstones media, List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit media. It seems to often be used as an alternative to the (franchise) verison. Though it is true that many media have articles on both, with the former being a list and the latter being prose. Then there is Batman franchise media, cos Batman.--Coin945 (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If only you put as much effort in creating articles as you do in defending them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:LISTPURP and WP:SALAT. There has been long-standing consensus to have and maintain lists of notable topics (themselves adequately notable and sourced) and I see no reason to reverse that consensus here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note At the moment they are lists, but the goal is for each of them to be along the lines of Frozen (franchise), The Lion King (franchise), or Toy Story (franchise). I've gone about creating good skeletons for those franchise articles. Just because the sources and prose aren't there atm, it doesn't mean they don't exist.--Coin945 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

If it is decided they should be kept, the new naming scheme should be decided. Do you prefer Disney's Tarzan (franchise) or Tarzan (Disney franchise)?--Coin945 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If non-controversial, that would be an issue for regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For works based on existing sources, like Tarzan, Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan, etc., then I think Tarzan (Disney franchise) is preferable, so as to better match up with the original source. Jllm06 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor's New Groove (franchise) (2000-present)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Take this to WP:DRV.

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: @Jllm06: @Schmidt: @Forbidden User: @Changedforbetter: @Chris1219: @Caringtype1: Pkajirian (talk · contribs) Baudim (talk · contribs) TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) TCMemoire (talk · contribs) FuriousFreddy (talk · contribs)

This article was deleted before this discussion occured. The only votes were:

Delete Sigh, really not notable.Forbidden User (talk) 1:54 am, 17 August 2014, Sunday (17 days ago) (UTC+8)
Keep this very good movie for watching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 4:58 pm, 27 August 2014, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+8)

Now that we are discussing these franchises, I think it is worth bringing this article to the table as well. There are franchise articles to be made on newer ones like Atlantis (Disney franchise) (2001-present) and Brother Bear (franchise) (2003-present), and for the sake of completeness, it would be nice to have Emperor back too.--Coin945 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Bear is a Disney franchise that commenced is a theatrical release of after the film was Walt Disney Animation Studios 44th' animated feature Brother Bear and its direct-to-video sequel Brother Bear 2. Rutt and Tuke is the tetragonists of Disney's 2003 theatrical animated film and the tetartagonits of its direct-to-video sequel. Kenai, Koda and Tug is the protagonists and deteragonist of two Brother Bear theatrical and direct-to-video films. Michael Badman served as the supervising animator Rutt and Tuke, Adam Murphy served as the supervising animator for Kenai, Noel Cleary served as the supervising animator for Koda.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins. I had someone contest the deletion for The Emperor's New Groove (franchise) at WP:REFUND (User:Coin945) and since User:Sandstein closed it as a WP:PROD deletion, I've restored it. I'd say that this should be either added to this or put into another AfD, depending on how this one closes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally this would have to go through DRV, but the mention of it being a PROD causes it to technically fall under REFUND's gates. I'm willing to send this to DRV if anyone contests this. If so, I'll list it, make a note at REFUND, but leave the article up for DRV to look over while its under consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Articles that list all the notable films and books and whatnot over decades, show that is a notable franchise, because of how many notable things were part of it. You don't need the words "list of" at the front of an article's name, to be a list article. Dream Focus 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 07:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Moynihan (academic)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have published a fair amount, but I can find no awards or special honors that would make him notable under WP:ACADEMIC. He has retired, so I also could not find an informative web site at the University. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—h-index is ~10. Doesn't appear to have been cited enough to make a significant impact in his field. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the h-index is irrelevant in this case, as books are more important than published papers.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickGuinness:: The h-index accounts for book citations as well. Coping with IS/IT Risk Management has been cited 7 times and has one review that I've been able to find. The Pilot Business Development Programme has been cited twice. I'm not seeing any citations or reviews for the rest. So far as notability is concerned, I'll agree with you that a book that reviewed ten times is worth far more than a paper that's been cited ten times, but given the absence of reviews and citations I'm not seeing a clear path to notability here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but happy to disagree on that.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see that there is enough available for the subject to meet the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC and I think there's broad agreement the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG at this stage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment - clearly the problems are that "Beta" the article's creator in 2006, has vanished, and Moynihan's books were published before computers. But that doesn't mean that he isn't notable.PatrickGuinness (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's worth considering but there's no need to !vote twice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Unless I am mistaken there are multiple reviews: Computer Bulletin, OUP (another copy) Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Higher Education Academy and the review cited above. Presumably this satisfies AUTHOR and GNG. There are also papers with 140 and 83 cites respectively. James500 (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The reviews listed are all for just one of his books, and it's not clear that one of the reviews (the one linked by Lesser Cartographies) was reliably published. That seems slim for WP:AUTHOR and the evidence for WP:PROF is even weaker. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft). There are neutrality problems with the tone, too (see also Canadian_business_journal and Canadianbusinessjournal, similar incarnations created by the same user). slakr^\ talk / 07:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Business Journal[edit]

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

I am not seeing how this business is Notable. The references are dead links or go to business listings (BBB) or the like. In searches, I'm seeing mostly first-party (including sister sites) links or companies/towns 'profiled' by CBJ pointing to the article in the issue. Stesmo (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning towards delete, but it may be helpful to post what criteria is used to determine notability of professional journals. Cpuser20 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "References" include several 404 errors, a BBB Business Review to an allegedly related entity (but that does not mention the subject), and a press release.--Rpclod (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A narrow google search of mentions yields almost 2 billion hits- this journal is very active. Remember, References don't establish notability.JacobiJonesJr (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for weighing in, JacobiJonesJr. First, I don't believe the number of hits or being an active company show Notability (see WP:COMPANY). I accept I may be wrong here. Second, I'm unable to replicate your results. If I search on "Canadian Business Journal" -wikipedia (a very loose search), I get only one million hits not 2 billion. If I start to restrict first-party hits from cbj.ca / canadianbusinessjournal.ca and the other publications from GeorgeNetwork (http://www.georgenetwork.com/publication/index.1.html for list) with -site:georgenetwork.com for example and remove -site:facebook.com and -site:linkedin.com results as well, that number drops quickly to around 74,000. Now, looking at the results reveals a pattern to me: the results are overwhelmingly seem to be press releases or fit into "Canadian Business Journal features the SomethingSomething" and "SomethingSomething Featured in Canadian Business Journal" essentially just advertising the 'article' published in CBJ about that company, town, etc. I don't believe this is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Stesmo (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links can be easily updated. If you are going to link to external content on the web, you are bound to have some 404 errors over time. The Canadian Business Journal is a business publication. Rather than deleting something, why not try to edit it and make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeKeyMedia (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 07:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Vuorisalmi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:BIO (specifically WP:CREATIVE). All links are completely unsuitable and unreliable as references for a biography. One of them is her personal website and another one has her blog writings. Ceosad (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, Hehku is a prime time national television show meaning its hosts are Finnish household names i.e. known to the entire nation. Furthermore, WP:GNG, E.V. has covered several nationally distributed notable magazine publications (Anna, Terveys ja Kauneus etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemanja.rodic (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably most known for being Mikko Leppilampis ex-wife and figuring in the yellow press thanks to that. Her now having a show on YLE pushes it over the notability threshold. bbx (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom regarding the English sources. As for Finnish media coverage, this should be assessed by someone who can check them. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Finnish sources check out as verifying the claims made in the article. However, I think the claims are rather trivial: she's an MD, doctor of a basketball team, has co-hosted one TV show, works with a consulting company as a speaker, and was married to an actor. What I think is the case here is that the non-notability of a person known for only one thing (a single TV show) is being masked by bona fide excessive citing of trivial biographic matter that is unrelated to the main point of the subject. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Thanks all for contributing to the discussion. In the WP:1E page it says 'If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.' on the (See this policy.) page. The keywords here are 'prime-time' and 'national television'. Prime-time national television spots are not reserved for unknown persons, but for household names.

The excessive referencing is because it was earlier pointed out that it was deficient, but I can take some of it down. The notability isn't an issue, maybe only the way I've constructed the article, so please help with that and thanks (WP novice in the house, still learning :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemanja.rodic (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; we don't intend to bite :) As for construction of the article, if you insist on the significance of this TV show and hosting thereof, it would help your argument if the article said more about the show and this person's involvement in it. Now there is literally just a single sentence. This is supposed to be the most prominent thing about the person. Here are a few sources which stay on topic that I managed to find: Mikko Leppilammen ex-puoliso Emilia televisioon helmikuussa, Hehku, TO 7.2. klo 19.30 TV2. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Finnusertop. I've included those now. What else should I do? Others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemanja.rodic (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments from others on how to improve the article? I've expanded the section on Hehku which is the event which qualifies her to have an article this. What else should I do? thanks Nemanja.rodic — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this point there is not much you can do about notability. Please note that the deletion discussion has been relisted twice already and so far there has been no consensus on the fate of the article. This means that after 7 days have passed after the second relisting, the deletion discussion should be closed and the article will stay. If you're confident this will happen, you can start improving that article to comply with various Wikipedia style guidelines. For example, you can turn the bare url references into citation templates (I recommend cite web in this case). While style issues don't determine notability, they are important when improving established articles - it's a useful skill on Wikipedia! You can always ask for help if you need guidance. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most notable thing seems to be having been married to Mikko Leppilampi which doesn't establish notability. Haven't heard about her personally either before this, and I consider myself quite in the know about Finnish entertainment news. --Pudeo ' 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that in the discussion above we have tried to distinguish the TV show as the thing she is most notable for and that we have reworked the article's sources to reflect this. If your assessment is that she is best known for Leppilampi, please provide something to back that up. Whatever you know her personally best for is irrelevant, as is the fact that you didn't know her beforehand (see WP:IDONTKNOWIT). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should teach me how to participate in AfDs. --Pudeo ' 11:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: My initial concerns about references have been taken care of, and I have changed my mind about deleting this article. I agree with Finnusertop on notability. She is primarily known for that one TV show. As bbx earlier has pointed out, she is a person known from the yellow press and as an ex-wife of Mikko Leppilampi, so I think having a biography rather than an article about the TV show is reasonable. WP:1E Ceosad (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 07:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Hohman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A private who commanded a six-man telegraph repair station, that's it. Fram (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a point of order, this is about one of 3 related articles separately nominated for AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powder River Telegraph Station and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homan's Rock. Can this be closed procedurally and one unified multiple AFD discussion be held? --do ncr am 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Miserably fails BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tag for addition of sources and better establishment of notability perhaps, but this appears to be a historic person with minor importance including that he is the inscriber of Homan's Rock, apparently a landmark like Initial Rock and other incribed rocks, also up for AFD. Perhaps the other could be redirected to this one's Homan's Rock section. There is a "merge all 3" vote at one of the 3 related articles. --doncram 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you any policy-based reason to keep this one or either of the three. There are no reliable sources about the rock, nothing to establish evidence of notability on either of the three articles. He is not "a historic person with minor importance", he is until evidence of the opposite surfaces "a person of no notability at all". Fram (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject of article does not appear to have received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore this subject fails WP:GNG. If significant coverage can be found later, I would not oppose recreation of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously no prejudice against a redirect to the associated article. slakr^\ talk / 07:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Chao[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it does not meet the Wikipedia notability guideline for biographies standard and qualifies for deletion for failing notability. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited so she does not gain notability through her sister, nor her father, nor her family's wonderful charitable donations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with both arguments above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added extra sources, added a section on her marriage and wikified the article. She is deputy Chairman of a very large international corporation, boardmember of multiple foundations with a Wikipedia article, sufficient coverage in national and international media. -- Taketa (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Angela Chao is on the board of directors of some of the most powerful groups on the planet. As the one of the few Asian American women in the U.S to hold these kind of positions of power, I am concerned why someone would want the page deleted. Further, her support and enthusiasm for the arts in NYC, which has not yet been added, is expansive. To summarize, Chao's a very influential member of the international business community, one of Harvard's most generous alums, influential in NYC arts, and a role model to Asian American girls. That's my best pitch. Do as you must. -Curtster3, who created the page

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 16:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The first reference is the subject's own home page. The second covers a family donation but only tangentially mentions the subject. The third merely lists the subject among New York City Economic Development Corporation board members. The fourth is an obituary as the fourth wife of Bruce Wasserstein. The fifth is an article regarding the subject as his bride. This is the only relatively substantive material and it covers her due to her marriage to another person. The subject is connected to important people and entities but notability is not inherited. The article does not show that WP:BIO criteria are met, although perhaps additional research would reveal more.--Rpclod (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete None of the references here attest to notability; most barely mention her, none is about her. Some are about embarrassing or sad personal moments. I did find one fairly solid article from a foundation whose board she is on [43]. That is a family foundation, however, so maybe it isn't a neutral resource? If someone cares to WP:Userfy this until more resources can be found, that would make sense to me. LaMona (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can also do a search on 赵安吉 her Chinese name for more info. 75.18.160.186 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And not a weak delete, a very definite one. Being on the board of directors of any organization, no matter how important or famous, is not enough for notability by itself. Marrying a billionaire is not by itself notable. There is no other relevant content. Her father is notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruce Wasserstein and possibly expand by a sentence or two the existing note about here there. I don't see sources providing evidence of notability under WP:BIO, although it is quite possible that they exist and have not been demonstrated yet. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Anber[edit]

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

Notability has not been established - either as a commentator or trainer. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is identical to a page online [44] - no idea who copied who. However, there appears to be more information available. He has produced DVDs, and may have appeared on TV sports shows. Third-party sources are going to be boxing fan magazines. LaMona (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say Keep, because I know who this guy is and he has made several appearances on national TV from time to time. However, I also note that he is not listed on TSN's "Talent" page anymore. PK T(alk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now the article has no independent coverage of him. Without significant independent coverage he doesn't meet any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is not independent. Fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the independent sources required to meet WP:GNG. I'm also concerned that this article is an exact copy of http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Russ_Anber , although I don't know if there are any copyright issues. I do know that anyone can enter biographies on boxrec, so it can't be considered a reliable source for that information. Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Should have been a speedy keep, as no argument for deletion was ever presented. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Jazz Record Collectors[edit]

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

Bobherry talk 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IAJRC is noteworthy because of its longstanding contributions to jazz history. Camaraderie of like minds notwithstanding, the IAJRC is less of a social organization. It is mostly a research and restoration oriented outfit that is highly respected by musicologists and music librarians. As a start article, the substance is admittedly weak, but the topic is useful to musicologists, music educators, and researchers of history. Eurodog (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When creating the entry for the IAJRC Journal, I created a separate entry for IAJRC to avoid over explaining the organization which, independently, is notable, useful, and has potential for much more. — Eurodog (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of the article, I now feel that we could incorporate info from it into that of the IAJRC Journal (then remove this article). Put another way, information about IAJRC under the heading of its Journal will be fine. I will happily do so (incorporate info from this article in the IAJRC Journal article) within four days ... then will wait for editors who have joined this discussion to weigh-in. — Eurodog (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article being nominated for deletion? If it is deleted, then the article on the organization's journal won't make much sense. I think it makes more sense to have an article about the organization and have subsection on the journal within the context of the organization's activities. Bassschlüssel (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not independently notable, this can be merged to IAJRC Journal. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publications of Socialist Alternative (Australia)[edit]

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

Puffery on behalf of a notable-but-not-that-notable socialist organisation listing anything various members have gotten published anywhere, much of it in dubiously reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is clearly a COI job, seeking to use wiki article for promotion of a political group. The group itself isn't that notable, so a separate page for its publishing activities is not needed. --Soman (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Soman; surprisingly well-done, but certainly not for Wikipedia. Frickeg (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree this is COI, it includes criticism from the Australian Prime Minister, and the fact that their website has been a target of hacking for its unfavourable political views. Marxwasright (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy/guideline-based arguments by and large posit that the subject fails WP:GNG / WP:SOLDIER due to lack of secondary sources combined with a relatively low amount of exclusivity for the award mentioned in the article. slakr^\ talk / 08:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Latif Khan Tarin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. The IDSM is the third level medal & Jemadar Tarin, received the decoration once, because he was KIA at the Duhaila battle. – S. Rich (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I think, as historically speaking, this is a significant time for commemorating the role and contribution of Indian soldiers in World War 1, and that the Jemadar did seem to have played a significant role in a particular battle at a certain time, and why should that be neglected? Its not only VCs who did an important job, many other soldiers, including IOMs and IDSMs, should be recognised. This is a good article and I support it. Thanks. 39.54.227.139 (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan[reply]

I don't know if, as the article's creator I should comment or not, but i do agree with the views expressed above that this is the centenary 1914-2014 commemorative year, and that there were many Indian soldiers who served with exemplary bravery and died in the Great War. Not all received the Victoria Cross-- some were recepients of lesser awards, but that does not certainly detract from their role and/or importance. I am working on this article and it will be a good one, in time, I am sure, and I do hope I will be given the chance of doing so. So, I request that we KEEP it. Sincerely, AsadUK200 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)AsaudUK200[reply]

I say let's Keep it! What's the problem really? As it is, there are so few articles on Indian native officers and soldiers from before 1947, and this one is a rarity, i feel. If you look at the category section on 'Indian Army personnel of World War 1', you will note that most of the names there are British or English officers, colonists, not natives or locals: and many of them havent any real achievements to their names, theyre just listed there because they were 'officers' and 'toffs'. Even among the few native officers, some are Maharajas i.e. princes who just had the privilege of participating in the World War 1 at a certain 'exalted' level, see Ganga Singh and Daulat Singh for example. Also, there are a number of Englishmen just simply listed for their priviliged positions and who received MBEs, CBEs etc for no real scrifices , see Bernard Brodhurst and Harold Berridge for example. One doesnt see why theyre 'important' and worthy of keeping but a bona fide soldier like Abdul Latif Khan, who gave his life for future generations, isnt? If the IDSM is an issue, there are some other Indian soldiers who also just received the IOM or IDSM like Gurmukh Singh Saini and Shah Zaman Khan, shouldnt we also remove them before we remove or delete Abdul Latif Khan Tarin? There is even an officer Muhammed Akbar Khan who is there because his 'achievement' was that he served in both World War 1 and World War 2 and later remained ADC to Pakistan's first governor-general. I feel this is all rather arbitrary. Either let's keep Latif Khan Tarin or lets also delete all these others too, as mentioned above, since they also dont seem to meet the supposed WP criteria. I think Ive said enough. RizwanaJ (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)RizwanaJ[reply]
- Brodhurst meets the notability criteria as a cricketer who appeared in a professional match, Berridge as the holder of the CIE, which is considered to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. Gurmukh Singh Saini may qualify as the holder of two awards for gallantry (a borderline case, certainly); Shah Zaman Khan qualifies as he later became military commander of one of the princely states; Muhammed Akbar Khan qualifies as he became a general. Let's not start getting racist ("a number of Englishmen just simply listed for their priviliged positions"). Many, many thousands of Englishmen who won the MC or MM, the equivalent of the IDSM, don't qualify either. And many Indians who appeared in professional cricket matches or were awarded the CIE do. Not one person has (or should have) an article because they were an 'officer' or a 'toff'. And nobody qualifies or does not qualify because of their ethnicity or nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points RizwanaJ. I personally agree, should Keep. I also believe (a) the subject of this article Jemadar Tarin, played an important role at a significant military event (the Battle of Dujaila) so he fits quite into the WP Military History acceptability guidelines, and (b) as far as general Wikipedia standards are concerned, it is clear that the content doesnt really make the subject or article notable, its actually the subject that is in the first instance notable. From the various primary and secondary sources one gets the clear impression, on review, that the subject Jemadar Tarin has a certain notability that precedes this article based on activity and, or deed(s) of note performed by him in a particular context and at a specific time. Having said that, there is also the option (if people want to badly delete this as a separate article)of merging part of this article, in abbreviated form, with the larger article on the 82nd Punjabis. I wonder if that would be more suitable? Khani100 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100[reply]

Comments by OP – I fear that one argument for keeping runs counter to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. (And I sympathize with the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; WP has hundreds of one line articles about football players simply because their names have shown up on a website that list team rosters.) In this case the question is whether Tarin's role at Dujaila was WP:NOTEWORTHY. If so, then the role should be mentioned in that article. I do not see enough notability for a separate article. Still, I see that 39.54.227.139 (Col. Khan) has added 3 further reading items. Do they describe Tarin's role? If so, these books should be used to flesh out this article. AsaudUK200, you are certainly welcome to comment. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir S.Rich, thank you very much for your comments here and also on my User Talk page. I have noted your previous comments and I have also seen the comments made above by several people. Sir, I am neither related to Jemadar Abdul Latif Khan nor do I have a personal interest etc; I cant say about comments made by other folks here, but I do think that some of the points made are rather valid. First of all, Jemadar Abdul Latif Khan doesnt fall in the 'Other Stuff' or one liner category as implied, please. He was a gallant person who did perform a number of fine deeds, and his role at Dujaila was also certainly notable. I have started this article very recently on 1st September and will certainly get round to developing it, and adding more relevant material (as already stated in my note/summary when I started this) --Im an old man now, and retired, and I have cardiac and diabetes problems, and maybe I cant hurry with my research and adding/developing articles with any fast speed. I hope you will please kindly grant me some time, in this respect, to develop this article at my own pace thanks. Secondly, The IDSM shouldnt be treated as a 'third award', its nothing to be sneezed at. As a military historian Im sure you must realise the value of this in the historical contexts? When it was instituted in 1907 it was the second highest award available to Indians, behind the Indian Order of Merit, however, when eligibility for the Victoria Cross was extended to cover all Commonwealth subjects in 1911, the IDSM became third highest in the order of precedence. It was instituted in order to recognise acts of gallantry that did not meet the standards required of the IOM. Its own unique value must be recognised. Also, I must thank here Col Mumtaz Khan who has added a small bibliography--to answer you, no, not all these three books mention Jemadar Latif Khan Tarin directly, only Brig Rizvi's history makes a decent mention; whereas Maj Qureshi talks about the battle of Dujaila and the role of the 82nd Punjabis there, and their losses sustained to save General Aylmer Fenton from embarassment , in a number of ways. John Gaylor's book is basically a general account of each regiment and not detailed, but shows the evolution of the Madras army and the transformation of the 82nd to a 'Punjabi' unit. I shall certainly be using at least Brig Rizvi's book, as well as other material to add to and develop this article about this officer. May I finally also say, that there certainly is a valid case for the fact that Indian soldiers from the British Indian Army , whether VCs, or IOMs or IDSMs, do deserve recognition at this point in time, for over 1.3 million of them came forward for the War and over 75,000 of them lie dead overseas-- Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus etc-- in many theaters from Europe to Persia/Iran. I hope that as a military historian you will also please sympathise with my perspective and kindly help me out, by allowing me to continue work on this new work or labour of love, painstakingly carried out. Im sorry I have simply gone on too long, here, but though I havent started or posted many articles, I have been an occasional yet serious scholar and editor. It would be very kind if you could cooperate, thank you. With best regards, AsadUK200 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

To explain this process, the nomination normally remains open until consensus is clear. As the nominator, I can withdraw/close the AFD as a keep. But I cannot close it as a delete. (That step requires an administrator.) That said, I am talking your comments to heart. The article does have WP:POTENTIAL. So I propose to leave this nomination open for a couple of more days. These AFDs often attract editors who help "rescue" articles. I'll probably close the AFD as a keep. – S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, thank you very much, I value your kind cooperation and help and I hope to do a good job asap, in developing and making this a good and reliable article of Wikipedia standards. I think this is a good idea to keep this discussion open, its valuable feedback and I appreciate your points. Sincerely, AsadUK200 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG. Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Google Books search didn't reveal [45] any significant coverage that I could see. Fails the WP:GNG and is therefore not notable. No doubt a brave soldier but insufficient coverage to justify a stand alone article. If indeed his role in the Battle of Dujaila was important there is no reason it cannot be covered in that article assuming that there are reliable sources to support the information and it is added in a way that does not constitute undue weight. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IDSM, as a third-level award, is certainly not enough for notability. This has been long established. If we have an article on this individual, then we should also have articles on every British soldier who won the MC or MM, for instance, or every American who won the Silver Star, as an equivalent award. That's many, many thousands of men. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please. I dont think that there are that many existing records for all the Indian soldiers who ever got the IDSM, so articles cant be made on most of them. It's indeed rare (please see the notes above on this discussion) to have an article like this. I have also started work on this and other editors are also working on it as an ongoing exercise and I think that , again, referring above to the previous discussion, it has some scope and potential. There are also, already many articles that are existing on Wikipedia (see note by User:RizwanaJ above) that are similarly not very highly notable but still reflect some degree of notability. If we delete this article then those ones should also be deleted. Sleva402 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Sleva402[reply]

Honestly, as the creator of this article I dont know what to say/comment anymore. In my earlier comments and discussions above, I think I have laid out all my ideas and points, in very great detail. I dont agree that this soldier isnt notable, and I think that his role at one battle was quite notable indeed although there is little published material in this regard, but there is some and I will include this in time. I had earlier requested User S.Rich that I should please be given time, to develop and expand, some other people are also trying to help out. It's a new article, many articles on Wikipedia started very weakly too and developed over time.At least, let's not just delete it out of hand? I would also like to reject the views expressed above that Im trying to use Wikipedia as some sort of 'memorial' or that I have any personal connection or interest-- just simply not true. I know that the comments are made by some senior and highly experienced editors in good faith, but I wanted to clarify this. Finally, I dont know. I think that the people here know better whats right and though I dont want to see this article deleted, I would be happy to accomodate. AsadUK200 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]
- Please explain what makes this officer more significant than a British officer awarded the Military Cross, the equivalent level award (and for which, as a jemadar, he would also have been eligible), which would also not qualify for an article. And explain why an exception should be made for him to the widely-accepted essay WP:SOLDIER. Because I see an heroic officer awarded a third-level decoration in the normal circumstances for which one is awarded a third-level decoration. Nothing out of the ordinary apart from the fact he happened to be an Indian; which actually doesn't make it out of the ordinary at all, since thousands of Indian soldiers were decorated for gallantry in the First World War. I fail to see why we should make an exception to our normal requirements of a first-level decoration or two second-level decorations (or even, to make it fair, three second- or third-level decorations, which is my usual standard for notability). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my earlier comment. Although I would like to KEEP this article, it might perhaps be better to Redirect or Merge with either the page on the Indian Distinguished Service Medal or the 82nd Punjabis. I wonder what the views on that would be? Khani100 (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100[reply]

Delete - While looking at content and the position of the people mentioned in the article, editors should not forget WP:N while keeping in mind that significant coverage in reliable sources important. --CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Cutest Penguin and others, please, I have already made a note of this point, do please read the previous comments and discussion before making new comments which are repetitious, thanks. I have already commented , also, as creator, above. And have discussed this matter with S.Rich on his Talk Page too; and though I do have some more relevant and 'notable' references (I think) there arent very many, honestly. I also feel that the article should be kept but if not, then I find that the views of User Khani100 are sensible, it could be merged/redirected to the Indian Distinguished Service Medal page, which already has a small list of recepients. Just as a reminder, some 6000 people received the IDSM between 1907 and 1947 when it was done away with. That doesnt make it too common a medal you know. According to most military historians and medals collectors, a larger part of the recepients , maybe some 70-80% dont have many records left at all. I would welcome more guidance/help and feedback thanks again . AsadUK200 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

@AsadUK200: You have already left your suggestion as per Afd, and there is no need of mentioning things again and again. Your comments appearing WP:COI for me and its like you are trying to convince the AfD. CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since 6,000 IDSMs were awarded, it makes no sense to single out a few of them to list on the Indian Distinguished Service Medal page unless those few were particularly unusual, which this officer wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note • For me some of above comments appears to be the WP:COI and there is great sense of Sock puppetry. Admin with checkuser right requested to see the case. Thanks! CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cutest Penguin Im sorry that you seem to have taken this discussion in a highly negative light. I will only repeat that I am a 'bona fide' editor, here, although not so regular or experienced, and am maybe not so familiar with all the abbreviations and terminologies that you use here to overawe and intimidate. However, I have in the past done some good work here and youre welcome to check that up. I am a retired academic and well known writer and I dont have any special 'interest' as you seem to imply, sadly, I am sorry that I started off this article , now. It seems that the good faith principle isnt deemed very important here. Also, dear Necrothesp, yes, maybe out of 6000 medal recepients Jemadar Latif Khan wasnt 'exceptional' but still, I think that since there are surviving proper records of so few of these, it would surely be valuable even by Wikipedia standards to have knowledge available about these few? Once again, as I stated above, if you all feel so strongly about this and feel that the article doesnt meet your 'standards', sure delete it by all means. Best regards, AsadUK200 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

Once again, I will repeat that although naturally I would like to keep it, I dont mind if the article is deleted and I have given reasons and rationale both here and on the User Talk Page of the original deletion proposer. But I would certainly request, that rather than outrightly rejecting and deleting this article, it would certainly be preferable if it might be possibly Redirected to another linked article, or a section of a linked article, as deemed fit. I had like the idea/proposal of linking/redirecting this to the Indian Distinguished Service Medal page but some editors seem to have an objection to this. However, it might be good to consider this option, please, and also, alternatives such as the 82nd Punjabis or Punjab Regiment or a number of other redirect options. Thanks, good wishes, AsadUK200 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without any discussion suggesting that there is a verifiable source connecting the terms, a redirect would not meet WP:V. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deva Soye[edit]

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

In current state the article lacks significant coverage in the reliable source(s). www.resourceinvestor.com/2013/06/21/summer-rest-for-the-gods-or-for-gold is talking about the same topic but still it fails WP:V as well as WP:N. CutestPenguin^Hangout 04:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE AND REDIRECT to Chaturmas. Both articles are talking about the same tradition which forbids "auspicious" works during a period of time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin^Hangout 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any RS supporting that it is an alternate/real name of Chaturmas. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source support this as an alternate name of Chaturmas. And actually I can't find any reliable third party source which atleast mention about the subject. Totally fails notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to be the alternative and extended part of Chaturmas, the deletion while keeping verifibility in mind after adding contents to Chaturmas will be appreciated. Thank you! CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, I can't find any evidence that Deva Soye is a recognized alternate name for Chaturmas. Altamel (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE AND REDIRECT to Chaturmas. The title of subject means "God is sleeping" and according to Hindu Mythology holy work must not be performed during this duration. My vote will be to merge it with Chaturmas.Ireneshih (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George Reese (computer programmer). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Mudlib[edit]

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

Fancruft. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Reese (computer programmer). Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. George Reese (computer programmer) is a worthwhile redirect target, as the mudlib's creator, but I haven't looked into the creator's own notability. Many of the mudlibs mentioned in the navbox look to be of questionable notability. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future, or if other mudlibs come to AfD in the future. czar ♔ 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Reese (computer programmer). I'm not seeing in depth RS to support notability, but the software is verifiable and Czar's suggested redirect is a good one. This topic has nothing to do with fancruft. --Mark viking (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners and hats puzzle[edit]

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

Messy fancruft. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "AFD is not clean-up" - The subject is serious Game theory, not "messy fancruft". This puzzle features in a Masters degree thesis from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln - [46] - and in class notes from a mathematics course at Stanford University - [47] - as well as various text books and study guides for subjects ranging from economics to psychology - [48] - WP:WikiProject Game theory and WP:WikiProject Mathematics should be notified of this AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dodger67. A bit of searching shows that topic clearly meets GNG. But the article also clearly needs to be cleaned up. The addition of sources would be nice. -Thibbs (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with Dodger67, subject seems to be notable.Ireneshih (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mycroft project[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources that talk about it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Sue Robinson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only reliably sourced notability is her unsuccessful runs for municipal office. Which means she fails WP:NPOL, and the volume of sourcing provided here doesn't adequately prove that she passes WP:GNG either. Founding the National Association for the Advancement of Transgendered People doesn't help, either, as the claim is entirely unsourced, the organization exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to her and not as a standalone article, and a Google search doesn't suggest that it can be sourced well enough to stand alone as a separate article either. So what we've got is a person who's notable for running, but not winning, in a couple of municipal elections and for founding a non-notable organization — and for added bonus, the article was created by User:Melisrob1, strongly implying conflict of interest by the article subject herself. To me, that spells delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsuccessful runs for local office do not meet either political or general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat and McClenon. I searched both names through numerous google passes, only possible reference I found was here. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Abedin[edit]

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

I think the articles Marwan Abedin fails WP:BIO. scope_creep talk 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biographical article whose sources are mainly about the firm where the subject works - some PR about the firm not the person, some quoting the subject in role, one profile on the website of an organisation with which the subject is associated. The sources confirm the subject is a man with a job, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and I am seeing nothing to confirm biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is is achievements in the corporate community: first UAE national to qualify the FINRA series 7, he is also one of a select few who are on the Bretton Woods Committee and a member of the Economic Club of New York. Not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradq (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added references to his notability and some past achivments to show importance to the UAE. This should satisfy the matter. please remove the delete tag. Muradq (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — Similar concerns as AllyD; doesn't seem enough to satisfy WP:BIO / WP:GNG, though the recently added source does help, it's a far cry from significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. --slakr^\ talk / 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak delete multiple sources are cited and still this is deleted? please be clear on how many sources are needed for the subject to be notable Muradq (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2014 (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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Fernández[edit]

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

Expired BLPPROD, looks more notable than most, switching to AfD Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cartledge (Music)[edit]

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

While he's clearly worked on a lot of projects, I'm unable to find reliable, third-party sources covering anything he worked on in a prominent role. The article appears well-cited but the citations are primarily validating that [artist he worked with] exists, not that he worked with them. Googling about finds a couple of youtube links for commercials, but nothing third-party that can be substantiated. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:- His work really give a clear indication that he is notable, but it is not necessary that all notable are published in media. Most of work seems to be before 2000 and even I cannot find anything significant for him. I will not prefer to vote for delete, my decision will be a weak keep. Ireneshih (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ireneshih: ah, yes, actually, it is. That's the core of our notability guidelines. There are exceptions but he does not seem to fall under any of them. Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Gudiño[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 without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 08:31, 8 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) 11:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum demos[edit]

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

The subject of this article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. The current sources are scarce and unreliable, but even after a Google search I couldn't find any reliable source that mentions something about ZX Spectrum demos. Λeternus ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are mostly on paper, but I notice that Hemdatornytt have several old issues scanned and they ran a regular column on ZX Spectrum demos. I think they started covering demos in issue 2, 1990.[49] // Liftarn (talk)

I also found that Your Sinclair did review ZX Spectrum (and SAM Coupé) demos[50]. // Liftarn (talk)

Your Sinclair has reviewed a single demo. Nothing containing the words "ZX Spectrum" is mentioned there. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems inappropriately pedantic. Your Sinclair was a magazine devoted to the ZX Spectrum - it would not have used the exact words "ZX Spectrum" in every single article, as that would have been the linguistic equivalent of 'You Are Here'. It's pretty clear that the article is about a ZX Spectrum demo, by any reasonable reading. Bonusballs (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But still, it is a review about a single demo, not about the concept of "demos", in this case, the ZX Spectrum demos. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was several reviews of different demos.[51] // Liftarn (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 19:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we have established that at least two magazines regularly covered the subject it is certainly notable. // Liftarn (talk)
Delete does not appear to have had substantial coverage by reliable sources requisite for an article. A merge seems a possibility, but there's nothing really sourced enough even for a merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Existing coverage has been established and the main objections to the article have so far all been shown not to withhold scrutiny. Bonusballs (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons stated previously. Bonusballs (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already given your recommendation (vote). --Λeternus ^(talk) 10:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability was established in paper magazines. Scene demos were also released with magazines on cover tapes.[52] --Frodet (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non notable. Op47 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ansh666 00:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 6 commenters roughly evenly split about the validity of the sources isn't IMO enough for even a no consensus close in this case. Hoping for more definitive comments after relisting. Ansh666 18:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this is probably a plausible redirect to the main Demoscene article: [53]. James500 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third relist now. Wow, you really must want the article deleted and damn all those reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
- I've put my reason for relisting up in the template. Ansh666 18:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok, let me rephrase my points. The problem with Your Sinclair reviews is that, they are addressing individual demos, not the concept of demos. For example, if we have reviews about Nine Inch Nails, but not about their genre (industrial), we may establish the notability of Nine Inch Nails, but not that of industrial music. For industrial's music notability to be established, we need sources that directly cover industrial music, not Nine Inch Nails. Your Sinclair articles are not addressing our topic directly - we may have articles about these individual demos, but not about the category of ZX Spectrum demos. And, as far as I can tell about the other sources, even if we take them as reliable, they aren't saying anything about ZX Spectrum demos at length. So I don't think we have established ZX Spectrum demos notability at all. We are far from it. --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. Your parallel is faulty. You would say that if we had several magazines with sections about industrial music writing about various industrial albums and that would not establish any notability. Notability is already demonstrated with the coverage. What you are talking about is sourcing of specific facts. // Liftarn (talk)

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but that does not apply here. // Liftarn (talk)

Why not? --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews also comments on ZX Spectrum demos as a whole. // Liftarn (talk)

I read them again, and I didn't find a single sentence that said something about ZX Spectrum demos in general. Could you please provide some citations if you find something? --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article. I've also added a few books that describe it. // Liftarn (talk)

Keep The same issues with this AfD appear in the recent AfD for the Unreal (demo) article [54]. There is a black hole of easily available sources for this pre-internet early consumer computer technology period, and such as there are will be impossible to source unless you go out and buy them as a collector. I can't speak for the start of Λeternus, but the world did not start in the year 1996 and proof of existence or importance is not dependent on Google. To anyone aware of this technology period, the article is so obviously about a real thing (and a notable thing). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, Google is a pretty good tool at finding if something is notable. However, I agree that there are many other ways in establishing something's notability at Wikipedia. You are welcome to provide any reliable source you find, online or physical. But per WP:V, Wikipedia does not accept original research, and the information on it should be based on external reliable sources. That is how Wikipedia operates. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is now the article is supported by eight newspaper articles and seven books. Looks verifiable enough and puts it way ahead of articles such as Commodore 64 demos and Amiga demos (no sources in text). // Liftarn (talk)
Keep - magazines at the time (3 or 4 of them) even encouraged readers to send them it. It was a lively scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.23.213 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/australian-rules-football-clubs-in-england-including-hephaestus-books/1110786391?ean=9781244909571

[2] ttp://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=0-6965-0-0-0&sID=130253

[3] ttp://www.afllondon.com/about

[4] ttp://www.worldfootynews.com/staticpages/index.php/England

[5] ttp://worldheritage.org/articles/Thames_Valley_Magpies

[6] ttp://adriangatton.net/2012/08/31/196/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]