Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 September	10 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBeam[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 11 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 03:35, 18 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 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom fails WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A product; this is mainly promotional. All of the references are of a promotional nature. I couldn't find any third-party sources that appear neutral. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be neutral, just independent. An advert is unacceptable, but a favourable review is (prima facie) okay. James500 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a reply to the !vote, not the response. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per the policy WP:V, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks including detailed articles in InfoWorld, Computerworld and PC Mag, and a headed section in the book "Using C&IT to Support Teaching" (Routledge). James500 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, and per the request of RoySmith, a search for ebeam + whiteboard produces the four results I mentioned immediately and plenty of others. Links for those four sources are: [2] (continues on page 66) [3] [4] [5]. James500 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: We need some comments on the sources found by James500

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:44, 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 Darkwood Dub. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lav Bratuša[edit]

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

Was listed as a prod but the prod was deleted as there was a ref to Facebook which is not quite reliable-so I think this might be the best now Wgolf (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE fails at WPGNG, among other things.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darkwood Dub. Unref blp; no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG outside of band. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 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. slakr^\ talk / 10:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Mangano[edit]

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

PROD contested by article's creator. The article has zero third-party independent sources that show any notability whatsoever; the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. While the article does have plenty of press releases, blogs, primary sources and Amazon and other book sale links, none of those contribute towards notability. Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE There seems to be too many pieces like this on wiki, if something or someone is truly notable, there are sources.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Aoidh keeps saying "zero independent sources". Her work is well documented and she has a large following on Social Media. Anyway, I have added some more references.

Her books have won 3 awards.
She has been on TV.
She has been on the radio.
Her work is talked about in various publications.
She has appeared in 3 feature films.
She has worked in various TV stations.
She has written two screenplays.

KEEP Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I "keep saying" zero independent sources because that's an accurate assessment of what is wrong with the article. The new references you added are the same kind of references which fail to show any notability for the subject. This is nothing more than a verbatim copy of a press release. This is little better than having a YouTube page; not a reliable source. Followings on social media and having "been on tv" without any context or significance does not show notability. She has to be shown to meet some notability criteria, most easily by showing reliable, third-party sources which are independent of the subject. This article doesn't even have that, which is why it was nominated for deletion. It reads like a résumé, not a Wikipedia article, which is why articles need third-party sources, to help structure an article from a disinterested perspective so that it doesn't come across looking like a promotional piece and to show that notability has been established for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to the radio show and TV show for context. The awards and her work are well documented. As are her appearances in the feature films. Of the 20 posted references, 19 are independent sources. Only 1 is from her official site. I would say that 20,000 fans on social media is some measure of notability (When I added this to the article you deleted it as "puffery"- I'm not sure why, but I will defer to your judgment. I suppose Facebook is not a good reference?). As for context I did put this entry in the appropriate categories and dare say that she is far better referenced and notable than the majority of other authors. If you can help me find additional sources, I would be most thankful.

Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a different definition of independent source than Wikipedia (or general usage of the term). Amazon selling the book? Not an independent source. A PR firm pushing a book? Not an independent source. This directory listing you just added? Not an independent source. This isn't even a reliable source, let alone one that should show notability. It seems like you're searching Google for anything that might be relevant and adding it to the article, but the problem is that if this is all that can be found, it just confirms that the subject doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. As for the number of fans on social media, that doesn't show notability as Wikipedia determines it. You can buy fans to inflate numbers, so that metric is meaningless. If reliable sources covered that number noting that it's significant, that's be another thing, but that's not the case here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both intelius and manta are independent & reliable sources. Anyway I don't want to get into an argument with you. Looks like you really want this to be deleted for some reason right from the time I posted it. If not, please help me find other sources if you can spare the time. Otherwise I will leave it to the others to judge. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those websites are little more than phone book directories; unless you're suggesting that having your phone number in the phone book makes you notable enough for a Wikipedia article, that should explain why those don't show notability. If you disagree you are welcome to bring up the question at WP:RSN so that you don't have to take my word for it. Just because those sites have Wikipedia articles themselves does not mean they are suitable references; Tumblr has a Wikipedia article, that doesn't mean any tumblr pages are reliable sources that show notability just for that fact. I "want it to be deleted" because it's an article about a non-notable individual that fails to have any appropriate sources, which is a huge problem for biographical articles of living persons, which must be held to a higher standard than other articles because of the nature of the articles. This article fails to meet even the most basic criteria for notability so it cannot possibly meet WP:NPOV, which is an issue and why the article should be deleted until more notability is established for the individual. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my statements out of context. Intelius and Manta links are used as references for her personal life (which you initially deleted as unsourced), not notability. I have added even more references to establish notability. Television and radio appearances, awards, magazine and newspaper features etc. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was taken out of context. Directory listings aren't independent sources when in that situation; if I create a profile somewhere, that profile is not independent of myself. Further, none of the reference you've added show notability in any way whatsoever. Those awards are a dime a dozen and no independent sources show them as notable in any way, certainly not to the point that they would show notability. A couple of trvial book reviews might show minimal notability for the book (which these don't), but they do nothing for the author. Working in television doesn't make someone notable unless reliable sources note this as significant in some way. Merely saying "Television and radio appearances, awards, magazine and newspaper features etc" has to be backed up by sources showing those as significant instances of those things, otherwise they do nothing whatsoever for notability. It doesn't matter what you can claim, what matters is what you can show through reliable sources, and this article shows nothing that would suggest notability, which is why it is inappropriate as a Wikipedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are worth a dime a dozen? Says who? And you want to establish significance of obviously significant appearances? You seem to have made up your mind anyway, even if she won the Nobel or Booker prize it may or may not make a difference to you. Oh well. I spent hours putting this together and it is clearly notable. Your statements are bordering on the paranoid and ludicruous "buying fans to inflate numbers" to rebutt her following on social media, "awards are worth dime a dozen", "Being on TV, radio and print is not significant". I don't know why you want this deleted so bad but it isn't an ego contest for me (despite the time and effort I've put in). She happens to be a notable author and that's that. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I'm saying that fan numbers on social media can be bought, that's why those numbers are meaningless. I'm not suggesting she did. As for the awards, they are irrelevant unless shown to be significant. "Says who?" is exactly the point; you need to show they are significant, or they are not. You can't just claim they are and expect that to mean anything, especially when trying to use that as a sign of notability. That is the criteria required when you claim that the awards are relevant. In the future, if you put quotes around something someone said, make they they actually said that, because both of your quotes are inaccurate and neither what I said or meant. - Aoidh (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:AUTHOR #3 suggests that a creative professional who is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews could be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry, but I'm not finding that. The article currently has a blurb about being "featured in the South Africa Herald" but the reference is a dead link and when I try to find that article by other means, it appears to be behind a paywall. It appears to be an author interview conducted for one of her books. If it is actually an independent article, then a few more of these could be enough to meet notability. One of them isn't enough however. As a note to the article author, it's worth noting that this deletion discussion has nothing to do with the personal character of the article subject, or whether or not her books are any good, it's only about whether this author is notable enough today to have an encyclopedia entry about her. As she progresses in her career, she may well cross that threshold. Neil916 (Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another reference to a newspaper article in the Orange County Register, and some more sources that demonstrate the notability of the awards she has won. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did news sweeps of US, international, fashion, entertainment, got nada. Did 'Nancy Mangano' without any filters, searched 7 SERP pages, got nada.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you do these "news sweeps"? Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really wish to know? Or do you want to argue that my news sweeps are flawed?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just is not enough reliable sources at this time discussing Ms. Mangano to establish she is a notable author per WP:AUTHOR or AP: GNG. The fact her work has won three awards does not make her notable. -- danntm ^T _C 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all since I'm not American, I don't watch much US TV (even the satellites are below the horizon), don't listen to US radio (which work completely differently than their European counterparts) and check up on US news material sporadically only. Thus I can comment only on technicalities (and other, semi-related matters), not on notability itself.
First of all Aoidh it's obvious that you want to have that article deleted. Personal reasons or not, the fact that you added the "orphan" tag (among others) and then systematically thwarted/sabotaged all attempts at linking other articles to this one (by hastily deleting all the inbound links in the other articles) hints that you quite obviously have a chip on your shoulder. Since you're also eager to point out Wikipedia rules to an obvious lurker (more on this in a bit), let me point out one to you too: WP:DONTBITE
Notwithstanding all the hard times all of you have given to Aximilli Isthill, it's kinda obvious to me that he's still mostly a lurker. I mean not only his citations leave a lot to be desired, but even his internal article linking is wonky to say the least (uses full Wikipedia URLs instead of the [[]] tag). I also have a feeling that he isn't too familiar with the academic criteria for references and academics-style citing either. This is partly obvious from his edits and his comments above too, which could explain why did he post so many dubious (or even outright useless) references. So how about taking this into consideration when giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Tomwsulcer has also mentioned that his news sweep didn't turn up anything. Whilst I don't think that a person's notability can only be established by tabloids (I mean seriously? Only junk celebrities are notable?!), there are sources which still haven't been crawled by search engines and generally might not appear online. E.g. the latest source additions seem to include some useful sources too. In general I think that besides the effort Aximilli Isthill put into creating the article, he also went that extra mile collecting additional sources only because of the hard time Aoidh has given him AND this AfD request too. And since he's obviously already going out of his way to improve the article, I'm sure future improvements can be expected too. That's why the keep. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are kept because of sources that exist, not what you think might possibly exist, nor does the amount of effort put into an article make it notable or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. "Giving him the benefit of the doubt" is irrelevant; this discussion is about the article's subject, not the creator of the article, and see your talk page concerning your incivility. - Aoidh (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: I do see some improvements in the latest edits i.e. relevant sources (from news portals). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the four editors above you did not. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, but they are the same sources that others viewed as well. - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom and other delete votes above. Current sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. As for the effort put into this article, it would be better spent expanding articles of notable writers, such as those at List of women writers. INeverCry 00:58, 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-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Passages of H.M.[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable book fails WP:GNG and no third party sources beyond paperback swap and amazon.com. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources I just added to the article, as well as the following: [6] [7] [8] I can't help but suspect that this nominator may not have followed WP:BEFORE. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article because the claim that this book is "non-notable" is not valid. This novel was published by a major American publisher, Doubleday (an imprint of Random House), and was reviewed in three major U.S. newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times). Therefore, it should be considered a "notable" book, and this article should not be deleted because of a lack of "notability." Nick Spengler (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BK #1 and comments above. The now-linked reviews in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times meets the threshold of multiple, non-trivial published works about the work by an independent source. Neil916 (Talk) 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Neil916. --Fadesga (talk) 14:33, 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 merge to Shi Kefa. The nominator's more specific detailed recommendation appears to have consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Kefa calligraphy[edit]

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

In my opinion has no stand-alone notability, notability derived purely from Shi Kefa the individual, a military/political figure. 90-95% of the article is not discussing Shi Kefa's calligraphy anyway. The remaining 5-10%, which basically just mentions his calligraphy style as being cursive (while saying nothing about the influence of his calligraphy), should be simply added to the Shi Kefa article. Timmyshin (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very selectively merge per the reasoned analysis of the nominator.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shi Kefa - agree with everything the nominator said. -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Di (scientist)[edit]

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

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

Unclear what contributions he made to be deemed a scientist. Timmyshin (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He was a fellow at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2011, so, if verified, passes WP:NACADEMICS which says he's notable if he's "been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" Article currently makes no claim to notability. this Baidu Baike article would be a good place to start if you can read Chinese. There are lots of people named Zhu Di and I wasn't able to quickly find English-language articles on the subject. Note, WP doesn't require sources to be in English. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I've added sources and expanded the article. He's an Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was the president of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Another reference added. Clearly satisifes academic notability criteria as both a university professor and a member of CASS. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom Timmyshin (talk) 00:11, 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.

Post-merge note[edit]

Please note that before carrying out the merge decided on below, I moved this article to Craft (UK band); the former Craft (metal band) is moving into the vacated name. This AfD was not about the Swedish metal band. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to The Enid. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craft (band)[edit]

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

Article that has been tagged for notability since 2011 and for sources since 2009. Seems to not have a lot of notability at the end. Wgolf (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to The Enid. Technically passes WP:NMUSIC with two independently notable members, but there isn't much to say so a merge may be preferable, and with two members of The Enid in the band that may be a good target. Coverage here means that the information can be sourced. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Enid per Michig. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to The Enid as per Michig. Lee M (talk) 02:24, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Omotoye[edit]

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

Someone whose notability is....basically using body functions to be a instrument. Um yeah...can't say that is quite notable. Wgolf (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one other usable reference besides the NPR All Things Considered piece linked in the article: a brief article in Punch. Other than that, just YoutTube, event listings, and social networking results. Using bodily functions musically is unusual enough that it could be notable, but it doesn't look like he passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. — Gwalla | Talk 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe his unique approach to music has given him enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I also think this article might be significant in promoting and expanding (or even creating) a new genre of music on Wikipedia. To the best of my knowledge, the reference from The Punch is sufficient to keep this article but just to clear any doubt I was able to find references from National Mirror and The Daily Independent (Lagos) (Note that these newspapers are politics oriented dailies who hardly publish things on entertainment except when necessary). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (P.M. News). Darreg (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most of the sources just mention appearances with a short description of the act, but I suppose cumulatively they show a degree of notability. The article in The Punch does give a bit more depth of coverage, and the National Mirror interview gives more. Enough, just. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he passed WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in highly regarded notable dailies.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I think the thing is the way this article sounded along with the source was bascially "wow I've seen 13 year olds do that" AKA just some gross body function thing. I think it needed to be more clear. Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lol. I nearly gave a delete vote after reading the article until I read that a Punch reference existed from the first delete vote, that was what prompted me to go look for other sources cuz I knew if Punch should publish it then other dailies should most probably follow suit. Darreg (talk) 19:40, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Huwyler[edit]

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

Actor who has just 2 roles that are not notable. Wgolf (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability in the article and no sources found from a Google search that would suggest an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 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 / 10:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Weber (photographer)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a WP:NOTABLE photographer. Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete In addition to not being able to find appropriate sources, the exhibition record looks weak for WP:ARTIST. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yatri[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I also did a WP:BEFORE for "Kathryn Root" (the name under which she performed as a pianist). Still fails GNG and MUSICBIO. --Stfg (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Yankilevsky[edit]

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

Unresolved notability for over six years. Fails WP:GNG because the only sources found are self-published. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is mentioned as a notable artist in many books, as shown by a simple GBooks search. Substantive coverage includes: [9] (an article by the notable composer and critic Alfred Schnittke); [10] (Financial Times, reporting on a 2007 retrospective collecting his works from museums and collections around the world); [11] (The Daily Telegraph, in 2009, referring to him as "one of Russia's most distinguished living artists . . . famously denounced as "degenerate" by Nikita Khrushchev in 1962 and was subsequently selected by Sotheby's for its groundbreaking sale of Russian contemporary art in Moscow in 1988. He was one of the chosen exhibitors for the Guggenheim's RUSSIA! exhibition in New York in 2005 and has lived in Paris for the last 17 years.") Additional examples: [12] [13] [14] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. It is simply not true that "the only sources found are self-published." SImple GoogleBooks search turns up a book published by University of Chicago press with 13 mentions of the artist. "The Experimental Group: Ilya Kabakov, Moscow Conceptualism, Soviet Avant-Gardes By Matthew Jesse Jackson." —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: foreign language WP entry. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep clearly meets then notability requirement for artist: the key requirement is having works in major collections, which the references demonstrate. We normally think twice before nominating for deletion articles here where there is an unchallenged extensive corresponding article in the appropriate national language Wikipedia-- some WPs are more reliable than others in this regard. I am only moderately familiar with the ruWP, but I have seen articles there for people whom we would not consider notable--so keeping an article here for this reason is not an invariable rule. But the ruWP clearly provides extensive additional information, including a list of works in museums, and additional references--tho some of them are not what we would consider reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 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. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Standring[edit]

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

Promotional failure of GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was a stub and poorly sourced. I add content and references. Person seems to be significant, at least in his island world, and is listed in NZ government sources, etc. Not super strong on cites that I could find here, so I would encourage some NZ locals to add to the article. LaMona (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now expanded and easily meets WP:GNG Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyones additions - Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Liberatorz[edit]

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

Non-notable trio of DJs in France, group lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. They also do not meet WP:MUSICBIO in any way. Rockypedia (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:57, 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 redirect to List_of_Videopac_games. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gunfighter (Videopac game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Unresolved since march 2008. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - IMO it's rare for games from this era to have received any coverage at all, so the mere fact that I can find anything (1, 2, plus whatever is in the article already) for this one leads to me to believe there are probably more, especially in contemporary sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Videopac games. What a mess. These AfDs are always a treasure hunt. First things first, if a game can be confirmed as published for an older console, it's not a deletion candidate since it's a fine redirect to the console's list of games. (Before coming to AfD, the nominator is expected to first try alternatives.) Now about this game itself, I found all sorts of spotted information but nothing that would constitute significant coverage. It remains that while this game existed in some form, we cannot locate the reliable sourcing necessary for an article on the topic. So a redirect is the best course of action for now. While we're here, though: the Allgame link is just a brief mention and then the archived Gamespy link has some information (not sure about reliability). Manual. Apart from that, no hits in the WP:VG/RS search. It can always expand out from the list of a cache of reliable print mags are found. czar ♔ 19:51, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Earl[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sensitive article, which reads as though it was written by a paid editor and breaks WP social contract. Reads like a puff piece. Recommend delete and salt, if deleted. Seems to be completely non encyclopedic except the The Fault in Our Stars and the film adaption. It's a sad story, where is the notability. If kept it will need trimmed. Such an article would have never made it into Encyclopedia Britannica. scope_creep 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note/keep

I just want to make a couple of comments in regards to a concern, and that's that I am not a paid editor. I'm a student who likes to regularly edit Wikipedia. I know that the subject, Esther Earl and her story, makes the article sensitive, but I feel like her notability is far established. There are 20 references. I can understand if 5 are viewed as not acceptable (3 from YouTube, 1 from Tumblr, 1 from the official TSWGO website), but the other 15 are from credible and/or high-profile sources like ABC News and USA Today. I'm fine if the article is trimmed, I could see it being trimmed, but I felt when writing this article to include her life, as it is a biography on her. This was not supposed to be littered with information on The Fault in Ours Stars and how Esther inspired that novel. This article is supposed to be about Esther, and as seen in the non-TFIOS sections of the articles (such as Life and Esther Day) there is plenty of properly-sourced information with references to People, USA Today, and the Boston Globe. My only comment on if a trimming does happen, the non-TFIOS sections shouldn't be trimmed so much as to make this article appear to just include mentions to the novel. I can see why the 2nd sentence of the TSWGO section would be trimmed, and that section is the one that I would personally nominate for a restructuring or rewording. The other two sub-sections of the Impact and Legacy section seem fine and properly sourced. As for the Life section, I honestly can't see a problem with it. This is a biography article, and that section includes sourced information (9 non YouTube/Tumblr/TSWGO references). I always try my best to not sound like I'm advertising the subject when I create an article, but I feel the sadness of the situation should not take away from the fact of the well-established notability. Soulbust (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: From a nom that's been putting a lot of articles up for AfD, this is a staggeringly bad nomination. There are good references from the Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, ABC News, USA Today, the Washington Post, Parade magazine -- major and reliable sources, many of which describe the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Moreover ...
(1) Exactly where in deletion policy are being a "sensitive" article or breaking the "WP social contract" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) set forth as valid deletion grounds?
(2) Since the article doesn't have a history of being created, deleted and recreated, what grounds does the nom have for a salting recommendation?
(3) Since damn near everything in the article is a direct statement supported by an inline citation, what grounds is there for trimming all that much? (That being, by the bye, a content dispute that's inappropriate for AfD anyway)
(4) This wouldn't make it into the Britannica? No kidding; was the nom unaware that the Britannica has less than a hundredth as many articles as Wikipedia?
One of the stronger WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations I've ever seen at AfD, and one which warrants review of the nom's AfD history. Ravenswing 09:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the lead a bit, but there's no question of notability to be sure. Someone hasn't actually read Brittanica, or American National Biography I guess. The girl who inspired Lincoln to grow a beard, Grace Bedell, is among the many thousands of people enshrined in American history. There's more than enough room for Earl among the Sam Patchs of American history.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she wrote a best-selling book. true much of her coverage spawns from The Fault in Our Stars coverage, but this has made the subject notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage as noted above and therefore is way over the bar regarding WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 06:14, 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 merge to Marine City, Michigan. "Merge the first line only (not all the stuff about the chief) to Marine City, Michigan and Redirect" j⚛e decker ^talk 23:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marine City Police Department (Michigan)[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, article is poorly cited, and a large portion of the article is about the department's police chief. Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created to establish information about the Marine City Police Department, which has been referenced in other Wikipedia articles and frequently in local news. Police Chief biographical notes are considered material to the article as the Police Chief has significant influence over the activities and priorities of the police department. If citations are considered poor, respectfully request suggestions to improve citations before deleting entire article en masse. Since this article was created less than four hours ago, it seems fair and reasonable that some period of time be allotted for a simple article to be created in accordance with relevant guidelines before it is promptly deleted, unless the purpose is to discourage and deflate newbies from creating new content, which seems antithetical to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Pacquiaowright (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's got 3.8 full-time officers, for pity's sake. Unless they're all clones of Columbo, they're not getting significant notice (not that Columbo got any either, which was kinda odd). "Local news" doesn't count. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first line only (not all the stuff about the chief, who isn't notable in any way) to Marine City, Michigan and Redirect. Too small for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Bergman[edit]

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

A musician with no info really. The myspace page has an amazing 2 followers (I know really!) and the "official" web site is a non existent page. Page has been around for nearly 9 years and nothing has happened since. Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had enough time to become notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No luck finding additional sources in this case, although there is an inventor with several patents, and a railroad exec by the same name. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kendall[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I missed the 2007 discussion, my error. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 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 speedy keep. Per consensus for keeping the iPhone 5C article separate, as stated below. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 6 Plus[edit]

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

iPhone 6 Plus is almost identical to the iPhone 6, except it has a bigger screen; as such, I do not believe that there is enough of a difference to make it independently notable. The two devices can easily be covered together in one article ViperSnake151 Talk 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (and redirect). No argument for outright deletion. We would have been fine coming to this consensus (to redirect) on the talk page before coming to AfD. czar ♔ 18:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a separate device. It has a separate code and a separate price point. Just as the iPhone 5C is a separate device from the iPhone 5S. Why do we have to go through this with you every year?--JOJ ^Hutton 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have many differences other than screen size. "The iPhone 6 has 'digital' image stabilization, whereas the iPhone 6 Plus has optical image stabilization." "The iPhone 6 Plus has a different User Interface." [15] 2014Best (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HighStage[edit]

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

Non notable product article lacking independent reliable sources showing notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reads more like an ad. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - it's an ambiguously promotional article. Fevrret (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking references to significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 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 speedily deleted by User:Randykitty per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trippers Philippines[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sounds like an ad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-Yep looks like an ad alright!Wgolf (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 07:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 and G11; tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:01, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krikor Arman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Known (in Michigan circles) for a single incident early in college career, but only limited play each season there. Two seasons with second-level minor league (i.e. third-tier professional) teams, no noteworthy results. No apparent notability outside of hockey. Koumz (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing much of anything that suggests a GNG pass. Reso lute 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NHOCKEY & GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLV1[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:BROADCAST. Brand new station, created several days ago, using WP as an ad platform. Neither unique nor special in any way. Common as muck. Not even a large listening audience. scope_creep 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree with the proposer, on each of her/his claims. This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it offers genuinely unique programming, as per W:N (broadcast media). There is no other radio station broadcasting current affairs programming, in English, from Israel. If that weren't enough, under separate standards, as a company, TLV1 is considered notable as it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources (because of its uniqueness), as per WP:CORP requirements, some of which are cited as references in the article. The assertion by User:Scope_creep that the station was created 'days ago', is also plain wrong. It was founded more than a year ago. I'd also like to see what your audience claim is based on. Back up your claims, please. Simply making assertions and presenting as them as facts, when you're clearly wrong on several points already, doesn't help your case.1-555-confide (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I should add, this is the proposer's second attempt to have the article deleted, after her/his initial attempt failed earlier today. How many times will we be forced to go through a proposed deletion process for this article, on this user's ill-researched whims? 1-555-confide (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I almost missed this one, amongst her/his many other unsubstantiated claims and inaccuracies: the proposer asserts that the station is 'using WP as an ad platform'. I'm the article creator, and for the record, and I have no link with the subject, other than being a listener. 1-555-confide (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately -- and in defiance of WP:AGF, as well as of any evidence to support the allegation -- accusing article creators of COI violations seems to be something of a stock in trade of this nominator. Ravenswing 10:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Another ill-considered nomination by this nom, who's run up a spate of AfDs in recent days. The article is sourced from Haaretz and The Times of Israel, both reliable sources, and which meets WP:BROADCAST by way of satisfying that guideline's very first sentence. Given nom's blatant error in the founding of the station, his curious and unsupported assertions that the article was created for commercial purposes (did he even bother to look at the creator's edit history?) or that it lacks a listening audience, I've got to wonder what elements of WP:BEFORE he followed?
PS: When I first put this comment up, I thought the nom might be new at AfD. I am badly startled to find that he's been making AfD nominations for nine years. Ravenswing 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing, while echoing their concerns over the nom. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:34, 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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 10:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devi ever : fx[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only sources are a few blogs and some reviews of its products. The only "notable" incident pertaining to the company is its failed Kickstarter campaign, which is only sourced to... Kickstarter! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending sources that establish notability. —Swpb^talk 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources for anything beyond its existence. Fails WP:CORP. No reliable or independent coverage of the Kickstarter thing; the existence of controversy alone does not make something encyclopedic. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--the plot is thickening. I just figured out that what I thought were two people with the same name is really one person, our subject. I have no time right now, but see this, from a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously: G S Palmer, Finlay McWalter, Davey 2010, I think we (that is, you) need to look at that article, and at a wide variety of coverage that in the end may add up to notability (at the moment, I'm not sure): [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. And while we should be wary of BLP speculation, there's this.
  Now, I read Guitar Player and Vintage Guitar, and I'd never heard of this boutique manufacturer, but it appears that her stuff is/was used all over the place. In addition, then, there's some personal stuff (I hope you understand why I'm trying to be careful with my words) that may well add to notability, even if one of them is a gossip site. But since Bitch has published on it, I think we can say that the subject is a transwoman, and while it may well be a one-off incident, it has seen some coverage in the blogosphere, [21] and [22] (the latter from Queerty). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We do have a Category:Guitar effects manufacturing companies and this seems to be one. The magazine Premier Guitar looks to be a reliable source. Devi Ever's personal life has been covered on some blogs but it's not yet obvious that those aspects need to be included in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I admit some ignorance in the music arena, there appear to be some reviews in reasonably reliable sources of her effect pedals reaching GNG. I believe [23], Electronic Musician, also has some coverage of the Effector 13. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of source coverage and discussion. — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - It does need expanding but that's not a reason to delete, I echo below - Lack of content is not lack of notability. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Andorra[edit]

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

This article does not say anything about the national archives of Andorra except that they exist. The only information is a link to the webpage. Wikipedia is not a directory. ubiquity (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National archives are notable government agencies. Doesn't matter how big the country is. And stubs are fine as articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible Speedy keep on grounds of no valid deletion reasoning. Notable as a major government institution, state of article has no bearing on whether the topic should be included in the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lack of content is not lack of notability. It would be more useful to target articles about small countries with research and improvements rather than target them for deletion. --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 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 - It does need expanding but that's not a reason to delete, I echo below - Lack of content is not lack of notability. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Austria[edit]

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

This article does not say anything about the national archives of Austria except that they exist. All the information is links. Wikipedia is not a directory. The article is also not very coherent. ubiquity (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly Speedy keep for invalid grounds for deletion? I've linked the article to the 3 articles on other versions of Wikipedia. This is a case of poor execution and should at worst have been templated for expansion from German (as requested on the article talkpage), categories, and references. A basic WP:BEFORE search would have turned up the many sources on the German page, but in any case as a major national institution it has a presumption of notability. The state of the page when nominated is not indicative of the notability of the topic, and it's the latter that decides whether it should be included. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National archives are notable government agencies. And stubs are fine as articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lack of content is not lack of notability. It would be more useful to target articles with insufficient content with research and improvements rather than target them for deletion. --Lquilter (talk) 17:29, 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. - It does need expanding but that's not a reason to delete, I echo below - Lack of content is not lack of notability. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Burkina Faso[edit]

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

This article does not say anything about the national archives of Burkina Faso except that they exist. The first two references only confirm that it exists, the rest of the article is "see also". Wikipedia is not a directory. The article is also not very coherent. ubiquity (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National archives are notable government agencies. And stubs are fine as articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is poor execution of a new article rather than non-notable; as Necrothesp says, major state institution. In fact this might be Speedy keep - no valid grounds for deletion advanced. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lack of content is not lack of notability. It would be more useful to target articles about small countries with research and improvements rather than target them for deletion. --Lquilter (talk) 17:29, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessEdge[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. Possibly mentioned in lists in google books but most references to ProcessEdge are to variables in computer programs. The only references on the page are from the company or its founder, so it seems like the article is merely self-promotion/spam. U2fanboi (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam with no evidence of notability. —Swpb^talk 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems somewhat promo, Anyway can't find any evidence of any Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noli- Fili Building[edit]

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

Non-notable university building. The article is currently unsourced and I can't find any that would show it meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had it not been for the article title, I would have suggested a redirect to University of Manila (not to be confused with Universidad de Manila), but as it is, I don't think it's a possible search term either. Individual university buildings are usually not notable, and I can't see how Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The history behind the building is undoubtedly made up and invented. Though I am still looking for proof of the building's existence, the University of Manila having only been established in 1913 can not possibly have links to José Rizal who was martyred in 1896.--RioHondo (talk) 03:06, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closenuf[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, advertising of a non-notable band The Banner talk 12:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sadly this band is very notable but i didnt take the time to footnote properly, would that be the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtseyfried (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives less than 2700 hits on this band, a clear indication that the band is not notable. Perhaps mr. Foti is notable, but that does make the band automatically notable. The Banner talk 14:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish sufficient notability. —Swpb^talk 15:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -No evidence of any Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. The band is signed to a indie label, and a In The Music We Trust article, is less than a paragraph.^[1] Band's Twitter is less than 600 followers^[2], their webpage is poorly structured and has less than 400 likes in their Facebook 'Fan Page'.^[3] With no more words, this does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Put aside considerations and Delete from Wikipedia. It's clearly a unambiguously advertising. Fevrret (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "iN Music We Trust Article". In Music We Trust.
^ "Twitter". Twitter.
^ "Facebook Fan Page". Facebook.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Drouin[edit]

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

~~Subjectively written probable autobiography relying on self-published sources, with little likelihood of ever achieving NPOV. —Swpb^talk 11:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: as the nominator, I have changed my position to keep, per the comment by User:Drouinwiki and the cleanup work of User:Tomwsulcer (nicely done!). —Swpb^talk 12:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CSD would be easier. -C759 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for speedy deletion are very specific, and I don't believe this meets them. I'm all for efficiency, but we've got to follow the rules. —Swpb^talk 14:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-weak delete I placed the COI tag on the article, as well as to the author who has only had one edit, the article creation. Once this AfD gets sorted into academics hopefully one of those watchers will investigate the notability/importance of the person.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I wanted to let everyone know that I am the primary author to the Michelle Drouin article. As a new member of Wikipedia, I am still learning the ropes so to speak, and have the utmost respect for the Wikipedia community. I assure you that this was not an autobiography, rather I am a student that was interested in creating an entry about Dr. Drouin. I did not think there would be a COI because I took the liberty of creating this article on my own, though in reading back through I can see that I worded some things quite subjectively. Many of the articles cited in the article are linked directly to respectable academic journals in which Dr. Drouin's work has been published, as well as sources from popular media (i.e ABC News, Huffington Post, etc.). However, I now see that I need to make changes as to not cite Drouin's personal website and try to link out to other relevant wikis. After reading the suggested edits and reading through the Wikipedia guidelines carefully, I am now fully aware of the steps that I need to take to ensure that this is a properly cited, objective entry. I truly appreciate all of your feedback, and plan on making the proper edits as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance!Drouinwiki (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the effort to familiarize yourself with the guidelines. The major media coverage is somewhat promising, and with the revelation that this is not an autobiography, I'm changing my position on deletion to neutral. I hope you can address the concerns raised – it would be better to see the article improved and kept than deleted. —Swpb^talk 23:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows cumulative citations around 60 (h-index 4). Some media presence is not surprising, considering the subject's research area. Perhaps too early. Agricola44 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep agree about numerous problems with article, hopefully they've been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, publishing record for Drouin is strong, there are numerous sources in article suggesting she meets the WP:GNG. Removed the CV-related stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mainstream media attention to her research over a span of multiple years makes a clear case for WP:GNG and probably also WP:PROF#C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Short of PROF C1, and I may be dubious of C7, but her work has gotten GNG coverage as David Eppstein notes, and that is sufficient in view of the reasoning at WP:HEYMANN, particularly bullet item 4. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:26, 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 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HDFSFileTransfer[edit]

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

The author has moaned about the deletion so I will give him the benefit of an AfD. Even if the copyvio position were fixed, this would be deletable as spam, as non-notable and being not an article but a user guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'; The author has copied and pasted material from the pages directly onto the article. SantiLak (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete/Merge; Fails to establish context or notability—and it is unlikely to be able to meet them. Can probably be condensed into a two-line footnote in Apache Hadoop#Hadoop distributed file system. —Sladen (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nothing but a user manlual/advertisement for a non-notable bit of software. Reyk _YO! 12:23, 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Gray[edit]

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

Not yet notable Assist Professor. One academic book (co-authored),with only 131 library copies according to worldcat --important books in this subject get many more. The book from his experiences inIraq shows 210 copies,also low for that subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I was the page creator. This is a rare WP:COI page for me (I think my only one). I was not paid, but I did this page as a favor to a friend. I had some trouble finding the types of sources I would have liked as it pertains to WP:ACADEMICS. I will abstain from this discussion due to the COI element.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed of the following sources, which may help establish notability:

http://corporate1.morningstar.com/Chicago-ETF-Speakers/

http://www.aaii.com/authors/wesley-gray?adv=yes

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3471531178001/taking-advantage-of-taxes-through-alternative-investments/#sp=show-clips

Does this help?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another link.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; based on evidence above. 128.125.52.41 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book he is famous for is Embedded, which has multiple reviews including internationally (I added a couple of sources). He is the only author of that book. I think the co-authored book referred to in the nominations is this one. He is interviewed nationally for his economic opinions (something most full professors don't experience), e.g. this and this. So, he satisfies WP:NACADEMICS #7 and, more generally, WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm still not convinced he passes WP:ACADEMIC but I think the sources provided above allow him to pass WP:GNG. TTT, it would be good if you could commit to some copy-editing. Certainly not an obligation by any means, would just be good to get some clarity around some of the claims and sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, What are the issues that you think need cleaning up?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just minor stuff - it was easier just to make a few changes myself. I don't think we should be (or need to be) naming his wife and daughter, for example and I moved his Reserve stuff to the end of his military service. Would perhaps be good to have a bit more about his military service - the work on which his book is based. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a BLP has requested privacy, family details are encyclopedic content. I don't know why Mr. Gray would be regarded any differently than any other BLP in which we know the name of his close relatives. I don't recall situations in which that additional biographical content was not considered ameliorative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen such details removed from the BLPs of politicians and sports-people - I would have thought a former solider wouldn't require such details to be published for his biography to have encyclopaedic value. But I certainly wouldn't object to them going back in - I really don't care either way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally sportspeople should have their wives and childrens names if we know them. If we can source them we should not include them. E.g., I made this edit at Chris Young (pitcher) which resulted in his sourceable wife's name remaining in the article and unsourceable son's name being excluded. If we had a source for his son's name, I would have added it though. Please name sportspeople where it has been determined that the article is improved by removing spousal and child names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not suggesting it's an improvement - just thought it was the "done thing". I haven't queried/reverted when others have done so. But happy to have it queried and happy to be reverted myself if my understanding is incorrect. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the familial detail to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The personal detail looks good and is what one expect to in a notable BLP. I am One of Many (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't congratulate me too much. His family has grown without appropriate sourcing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Definition Language[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language. This article has been sourceless for over six years and I can find no sources that would satisfy WP:V or WP:N, only hits to WP and its mirrors or to unrelated things with a similar name. Half the article is a copy and paste of a man page for tangentially related software. A prod on this page was previously removed by the article's creator. Reyk _YO! 06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. At least, none that have been digitized. If someone can locate offline sources, then the article can be recreated. I thought about redirecting to the successor mentioned in the article, but I think that article could very well end up being deleted, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Six years is far too long. —Swpb^talk 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search turned up no significant coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 13:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Garton[edit]

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

Not notable, seems to fail WP:MUSICIAN. Problematic article cited exclusively to self-published sources. Few external Ghits. Ohc ^¡digame! 08:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes criteria No. 1, 7, and 10 at WP:MUSBIO. Recently added references are independent of the artist and support claims to notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks a bit puffed-up (and could do with depuffing), but I concur with Shaidar cuebiyar that he scrapes in - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Shaidar cuebiyar's comments.Dan arndt (talk) 01:33, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads[edit]

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

A list of people who participated in a certain event of sports is non-notable as a subject itself; more so, if the event was just an average one in its own category. Whatever useful information the subject carries, i.e. the names of the players, can be easily written in the main article of the sport event itself, which is 2006 ICC Champions Trophy in this case. The list is filled up with trivial DOB of players and the lead tells nothing about the topic "players" but just about the parent topic of "event". I would have boldly redirected it to the main article, like it did few other forks of this 2006 trophy. But the article is one of the best lists we host on WP, (the FLC review was done in 2006 and was quite a short one. In 2014, we have bigger ITN and DYK discussions), and hence brought it to AfD for views of more editors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the amount of information contained in this article (and plenty of other similar ones) would swamp the parent article, but still adds a good deal of detail. WP:OTHERSTUFF shouldn't be used in deletion discussions, BUT deleting this article would set a dangerous precedent across all sports. Harrias ^talk 17:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of information is mostly indiscriminate. I am sure DOBs have remotely got anything to do with the players. Not in a single line is any relevance; like young batsman are better than young bowlers or whatever, is made. So that column is useless. Same with "First class team". Although ODIs, bowling/bating style is bit relevant with the sportsman, its not necessary to be displayed there and if that is why stop there? There is plenty paraphernalia to tabulate. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:SAL - a notable list of individuals all competing at a notable event. If you disagree on its current FL status, then you can request it to be reviewed, instead of bringing it to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am least interested in it's quality status. If something like that is considered the best by this community then so be it. But certainly the notability of the topic is questionable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep decent references, perfectly suitable fork, and a word of advice to the nominator, please choose your AfDs more wisely, this is not doing you any favours. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need favours? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? Eventually these kinds of badly formed proposals will be summarily dismissed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aah! You make me appear like a deletionist and that too without any supporting proofs. And its not a "suitable fork" but more of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Harrias, Lugnuts and The Rambling Man. --Khadar Khani (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep – Legitimate fork. Also if we were to delete this article, it would set a similar precedent to other sports as Harrias says. In that case, you may also want to target articles like this. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:32, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelina Vahekeni[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. No independent sources for this BLP The Banner talk 12:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google Test gives a number of less than 15 thousands hits, including doubles, related and social media. That boiled down to a massive 250 unique hits. The Banner talk 10:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Angola, along with four or five others who are in the same boat (i.e. did not place in the Miss Universe contest). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep is a good description. This slew of nominations looks like an attack on this traditional claim to notability. The amount of coverage every one of these contestants get, at what is essentially a media event, certainly meets GNG. I found the LA Times, Seattle P/I and Las Vegas Sun does an individual article on each contestant, much less the celebrity and fashion magazines that do coverage on each contestant. And to show the WP:BEFORE bad faith nomination of this particular contestant, there is an article I sourced in Time Magazine of her modeling a controversial national costume, apparently missed because the OP didn't bother to look. I think all of these noms should be Keep wholesale with the same disregard the OP used in making the noms. Trackinfo (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas. And instead of throwing with PAs, you better start reading what I wrote before. The Banner talk 20:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that because the article creator/subsequent editors are in cahoots with the pagent that somehow it makes the article irrelevant? There probably are commercial interests involved. Her modeling career certainly is promoted. But it would be irresponsible for wikipedia to remove all content that might be supporting commercial interests. We report facts. You cannot deny that she won the National title and that she appeared at the World patent. Commercial and prearranged as that press event is, that does not erase the press coverage she got. Trackinfo (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the notability Guidelines state:

In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events.

The Banner talk 00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, each of these contestants are notable for two events. 1) their selection as their national winner and 2) their appearance at the Miss Universe pageant. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary round of an event is not a separate event. The Banner talk 08:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the comment I posted to your talk page where I explained these are separate National events, not preliminary events. Banner, you choose not to listen. Trackinfo (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not combine all these identical nominations into one to save time? Or better yet, just stop nominating them. They have newspapers in their country, and they will give coverage to this in their native language. If you spoke that language and they had their newspapers and other media online to search, you could find coverage easily. Dream Focus 03:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at some, but the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Chernova was absolutely terrible, it throws the rapid-fire bunch of AfDs into total question.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Journal de Angola cites I added help confirm notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:14, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Beyne[edit]

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

Outdated BLP article that fails WP:GNG and has no independent sources. The Banner talk 12:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google Test points to 35.700 hits, including doubles, related and social media. In effect, it boils down to 211 unique hits, including related websites and social media. The Banner talk 10:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pageant winner at that level, representing Belgium in the Miss Universe pageant => notable, with sources here and here and here, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article simply needs improvement. There are many Belgian news sources covering their national beauty contest winner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:12, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yéssica Mouton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sources The Banner talk 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google Test points to 4620 hits, including doubles, social media and related websites. That boils down to a mere 154 unique hits, including social media and related websites. The Banner talk 10:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect properly viewed, Miss Universe is a reality show, and reality show contestants sre usually redirected to the show (or season) on which they appeared. In that light, this ought to be redirected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"properly viewed" just means the way you view it. Many national pageant winners are deemed notable. Many reality show winners also have articles, but I'd suggest that is often a less notable accomplishment in terms of coverage received.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and redirect.~~Move to neutral ~~Clearly fails WP:GNG, and~~ I also find Calossuarez's arguments regarding "Miss Universe" basically being a reality show persuasive. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain convinced that such pageants should be treated like reality programs are, with contestants being redirected to the main article, it's clear that there are multiple sources for the contestants. I'm still unconvinced that simply because there are sources, that an article is merited, particularly given WP:ONEEVENT, but am switching my recommendation to "neutral", based on the fact that I was mistaken about the lack of sources. I do, of course, reserve the right to renominate this article (and others) at a future date, using more apt reasoning than the current nomination presents. My apologies for not looking deeper into the sourcing before making my comments above. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: Just look for sources guys, I just easily found numerous articles about her in the Bolivian newspapers, adding a number of bare URLs to the article for the moment. She won her nation's beauty contest (Miss Bolivia) so this is really no shock; would you suggest Miss America is not notable? Come on now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I missed this one out of almost a couple dozen similar nominations by the same NOM. 12 sources, unique attributions, this one is as said above, obvious. Trackinfo (talk) 19:04, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trudy Harris[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a barely notable author of children's fiction. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a bit of googling, here's what I found by way of reviews: Kirkus reviews: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Publisher's weekly: [29]. Rutgers University Project on Economics and Children: [30]. Bookaday: [31]. readthatagain.com: [32]. Also, Pattern Fish is included in the National Council of Teachers of English A Booklist for Pre-K—Grade 6 bibliography, and is reviewed therein (#9.29, page 192). I'm not seeing anything that would indicate passing via WP:ACADEMIC, but WP:NAUTHOR looks at least plausible. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/userfy-this could use a userfy I think. Wgolf (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many reviews listed by Lesser Cartographies are enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This fell off my stack, so here's my (belated) !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:44, 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. Secondary sources first, article second Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Creasy[edit]

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

An article about a fictional character which neglects to mention which works of fiction include that character. AJ Quinnell appears to have created a fictional character called John Creasy, I found no references pertaining to this character. I suspect that it might be a hoax! Salimfadhley (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am the creator of this article. Creasy's first name is Marcus and it's in the adoption certificate of Juliet in "The Blue Ring", which is the 3rd novel in the series (names of the novels have been added to the article). The name of the character's first name in the MOVIE seems to have been "John", but his name in the NOVEL is Marcus. Since it's not mentioned in "Man on Fire", the screenwriter probably made up a name. The 2004 version of the movie took place in Mexico while the original novel took place in Italy, and there are many other differences, including the character's name as it so appears. It also leads us to realize we have inaccurate information on AJ Quinnell's article. What is the course of action on this?--WikipeidaEditoriall - 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qestion, are there any reliable secondary sources that discuss this subject? In other words, since this is an article about a fictional character in a series of books, why do you think that this deserves it's own article rather than just a plot note in an article about the series? --Salimfadhley. For reference, here is an example of a better article about a fictional character's biography - note that the article (and related articles) make extensive use of secondary sources. (talk) 19:30, 26 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) 14:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER Hi! I've been busy for the last few days. These are popular works and I can certainly add secondary sources. What I have contributed so far is probably one third or one quarter of what I can eventually contribute in time. My first reason, amongst some others while I went on, is AJ Quinnell's writing style. He has obviously done thorough research in great details before writing these fantastic novels and though the characters, not only Creasy, are fictional, their background and personal traits are very closely intertwined with historical facts, yet he doesn't give it away in one place. He writes about them in different places and of course not in a chronological order, which makes the readers delve into the quest of creating a logical streamline of facts and information, but not an easy task at all! I believe this article will make this task a lot easier for many readers. --WikipeidaEditorial (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 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. slakr^\ talk / 10:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan Warriors Youth Development[edit]

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

An article on the youth development of a rugby league team. The article was created in 2007/8 and has had no worthwhile content added since this time. It essentially contains a list of players who were in the youth system and have long since moved on and a list of meaningless youth team results from 2007. The article can't be maintained and there is no point in doing so. The only ref is a link to the clubs website where this information belongs. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need to add much more to the nomination statement, which puts forward incontrovertible reasons to delete the article. Perhaps this could be a notable topic in its own right or a legitimate fork from Wigan Warriors. And there should be no prejudice against recreating such an article if notability can be shown. But unless fixed in the course of this AfD, deletion is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 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) 14:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find the type and quality of sources that would be required to support this article under our general notability guideline. I did find a 2-sentence blurb from the Liverpool Echo via Highbeam, which provides the following coverage: FURTHER evidence that the Wigan Warriors Youth Development/Scholarship Scheme is continuing to bear fruit emerged this week when six players were selected for the English Schools Under-15s. Young Warriors Thomas Brindle, Jay Duffy, Darryl Kay, Daniel Pyke, Steven Roper and Joel Tomkins will tour France from March 24-26. [33]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahra Biscuit Factory[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a legitimate Foodstuff Production Company and has a place here along with already established article such as United Biscuits or Fox's Biscuits. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems.Chronopher (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not POV, it is an advertisement. And comparing with other articles is useless, as all articles are judged on their own merit. The Banner talk 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Although I have to admit that those articles do not have Russian text in the article.[reply]

Keep but changes needed as a reference to this biscuit manufacture but needs a lot of editing to meet guidelines and the remove the spam! will be needed.Kolforn (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 26 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) 14:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on making this article acceptable, but it still need further work. Lets leave it up and running and see how it develops.Kolforn ♣ 18:56, 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 10:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the Frequency[edit]

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

This one seems to have slipped through the publicity net when American Hi-Fi were busy on other projects. I couldn't find much other than the brief Boston Globe article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, there's little more than a track listing. Sionk (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boston Globe, Prefix, and this Sputnik Music review plus this from AltPress are enough to keep it. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 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) 14:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Michig's findings, which appears to be enough to meet notability. • Golf is super cool (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemusique[edit]

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

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

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

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

Poorly sourced promotional biography of a non-notable person. A news and book search of her pseudonym and birth name reveals no reliable sources for establishing notability as required by WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Temmeli, Jr. Received a public Proclamation from the Mayor of Columbus, Georgia in 1998, has received several city and state community awards in New York and Georgia, and is currently a vice president of a major record label of whom the CEO has been listed in Wikipedia for years. She is notable to a lot of us out there that follow the music industry and those that are truly helping the community and has worked behind the scenes for 20 years. I am not familiar on how to write things on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestion on how to source things better. Several newspaper articles, etc that I have seen her in years ago are not available online. Associate Press release of her appointment is scheduled for next week (I called and asked Que Records).

In reviewing your rules at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSICBIO#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

If the subject is not notable[edit]

has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article; avoids self-promotion; and includes information that can be verified through independent sources.

This current article meets that above criteria. There is no self-promotion, there is great significance as she has been appointed a VP at a major label, and the most recent article was in Chicago ( the source sited in reference).user: payroll.npr user talk:payroll.npr

Andrea knows what to do in getting results. She's dedicated, devoted and determined to see results. Making Andrea apart of any task is the greatest choice one will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall Brunson Sr. (talk • contribs) — Kendall Brunson Sr. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

04:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)~ Please see the additional sources and conversation referenced at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrX#Your_nomination_to_delete_LEMUSIQUE_.28Andrea_Temmeli_Jr..29

user: payroll.npr user talk:payroll.npr

this the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer article Is one article. I was informed by mrX, the senior editor that recommended deletion that "You will need at least 2-3 sources that discuss the subject in some detail. I hope that helps.- Mr X 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Exceprt from My response Thank you Mr X for the warm welcome It does help. This was one article, but it was also on the news as well. There was also another article in 1998 for Gospel Thunder, and a Proclamation was received for that event. She has done quite a bit. The Chicago magazine that did the article was http://www.justmemagazine.com/ it was published on July 8th. I went to their site and I am not sure how to pull up the archives. But I did source the magazine advertisement that I found on Facebook about the article in the original article I wrote. A colleague, Milton Davis, had her on a radio show recently as well with SILK after the BET Awards as well. I found information about that at I found 2 more: http://yooying.com/p/751361320539503936_203468694 and there was also an mtv entry at http://www.mtv.com/artists/lemusique/

The new problem that has been stated today is that the page is an orphan and does not referenced other wikipedia pages. This has been fixed.

I took out some redundancies, and some verbiage that i had used from a source that was irrelevant. Payroll.npr (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also reference more external links, and added the Chicago mag resource as well. Is this enough to remove the AFD? user: payroll.npr user talk:payroll.npr (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am going up against 3 additional groups of debaters. Well, I hope that one can see that this young woman has done a lot for the community and for artists across the country. It seems unfair that noteworthy is synonymous with notoriety in today's world. The CEO who appointed her is here on Wikipedia and has been for years. Why would she be any less relevant? Her accomplishments are sound and trackable. Please let me know what other resources are needed. Payroll.npr (talk) 01:18, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official Release of Vice Presidency by Que Records/EMI: I went back online and saw that Que Records has started to make online announcements about Lemsuique being appointed Vice President. This reference has been added added to the page as well to further show its significance. Payroll.npr (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not just poorly sourced, it's fraudulently sourced. A 2010 post accessed in 2011 cannot verify that she is in a position she was appointed to in 2014. Lemusique lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert J. Perez[edit]

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

Does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE. He has been quoted, but there is not enough coverage. Has been tagged for notability for over six years without resolution. Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[off-topic comments refactored to the talk page of an AfD with identical comments, WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lawyer in private practice. No significant coverage about him found in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:42, 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 09:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sources meeting WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-Cup[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a WP:NOTABLE product. Last AfD was no consensus, I assume because it attracted only one comment (although that one comment was a 'delete'). As it has been tagged for notability for over six years, it's time it was properly looked at. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Procedural close Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply not true - please comment on the article. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: You have stated, "Simply not true", but I see no explanation or evidence. For WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 23, I count 30 Boleyn nominations for one day on a page with 127 nominations. Do you want me to list the 30? In a six-hour work-day, that is one nomination every twelve minutes. Do you agree that this represents a deletion spree? If not, why not? Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, you made exactly this same comment at ten AfDs in a row (talk about a spree!) but it is not helpful to the discussion. You offered no reason for a Keep, much less a Speedy Keep, except to question the good faith of the nominator. If you have a valid reason for keeping this article, please give it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Ok, here is the list of 30 nominations I found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 23:

Hans Jørgen G. Gundersen
Colin Murdock (actor)
Slam Bang
Aaron Sperling
Starfleet Command (fan group)
Paul Stebbings
Steltor
Laura Stepp
Natalia Obradovicova
Undeclinable
Robert Smit (musician)
Bernhard Loibner
Malcolm Murray (actor)
Optimus mini three
Palestine Association
Deborah C. Peel
Thanasis Pouliadis
Paschal Preston
Manji Khan
Badeji Khan
Kamikaze Hearts
Stacy Johnson
Farouk Jiwa
Honda CR85R Expert
Lárus Halldór Grímsson
Bitumen-based fuel
Roderick Flynn
Noah Becker
Artemis (contemporary artist)
Choral Arts Ensemble of Portland

Again, do you agree that this represents a deletion spree? If not, why not? Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 26 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) 14:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no ref, dead link to pdf, vague claims... couldn't find a ref to support. Warren (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Popular Mechanics reference is here. I'm not even interested in sailing, but there used to be tons of these little boats around. I'll update the stub, perhaps the article is a better merge candidate? I can't help but think that there are other references out there. 009o9 (talk) 02:36, 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 09:56, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Luter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. 2013 AfD closed as no consensus. Has been tagged for notability since 2008 - time for it to be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[off-topic comments refactored to the talk page of an AfD with identical comments, WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Keep I stand behind my keep vote in the first AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:47, 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 09:56, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kauaian Institute[edit]

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

Lots of sources, but none which are clearly reliable proof of substantial coverage. Created by WP:SPA WP:COI creator years ago - has been tagged for lack of notability for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[off-topic comments refactored to the talk page of an AfD with nearly identical comments, WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Delete Not notable; in a search I found a couple of passing mentions at the Pacific Business News, plus one actual article from the same source, which is already cited in the article and is the ONLY significant independent source in the article. FYI, since the references in the article are not properly cited and you have to click on each one to find out what it is, here is a summary:

1. 2003 article from Pacific Business News specifically about this institute.
2. bio of founder, from the website of "Economics for Equity and Environment", whatever that is.
3. link to another project founded by same individual; unrelated to current subject
4. self referential
5. self referential
6. shows research from the Institute reproduced on a Kaua'i government website
7. dead link
8. newspaper op-ed by the Institute's director
9. dead link
10. dead link
11. press release
12. dead link

There is nothing here to suggest that the article is worth keeping, and that's not surprising; it's a recently founded and very narrowly focused institute. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 26 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) 14:49, 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 09:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Serrano de Conservação da Natureza[edit]

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

No doubt a worthy organisation, but no evidence that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for over six years for referencing and notability, without improvement. No Portuguese-language article. Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Procedural close Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(off-topic comments refactored to talk page WT:Articles for deletion/Instituto Serrano de Conservação da Natureza. MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:N and cannot find a corresponding article in Portuguese Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 26 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, 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 09:54, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pradani Muthirulappa Pillai[edit]

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

Delete for following reasons. 1. Fails WP:NOTABLE. The only reference I can find on the internet, apart from mirrors of the article itself, is a minor footnote here. Article so far as it refers to its subject is completely unsourced by citations (despite being flagged as unsourced since 2012). The sources relating to background appear to be Indian newspaper articles which cannot be verified. 2. On the article talk page the article author admits that the article is completely the result of WP:OR. Smerus (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gazetteer of India and Manual of the Ramnad Samastanam are books, not newspapers; the article's author said that the work was original in the sense of not being a copyright violation; I found another very small mention for the alternate name at Temples of the Setu and Rameswaram. The material said to be drawn from specific numbered pages of the books is not unverifiable, though they may not be verifiable on the internet. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Additional references: Tamil Studies, Volume 3, Heritage of the Tamils: Temple Arts, Ramanathapuram District: An Archaeological Guide, Journal of Tamil Studies, Issues 15-16 and Madras District Gazetteers: Ramanathapuram. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all the references given by User:24.151.10.165 are merely passing references to the name. They give no support to WP:NOTABILITY of this character. Please read the standards at WP:NOTABILITY and specify which (if any) apply here - I would say none.On WP:OR, the article author has written: "I am the original author of this piece, which is a result of research done by me in Tamil Nadu Archives in Chennai." These archives are not cited, or citable.--Smerus (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The significant sources are the books cited in the article. Please read: WP:SOURCEACCESS "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." (emphasis added). Ramnad Manual (Madras, 1892) Pg. 7, 120-121, 167, 243-244, 248, 270, 287-290, 292-293, 295, 298-300, 306, 336-477, cited in the article, constitutes WP:SIGCOV assuming good faith, as we must: WP:AGF. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 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) 15:04, 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 09:53, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Child Care Co-operative (NSW)[edit]

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

Promotional page for local co-op. All non-press release references are about general topics that only mention the organization DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my talk p. for details: Refs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are about the general funding of child care in NSW. (similarly 1 in all probability,, tho I can;t see it) Ref 6, 9, and 10 sre general problems. The Coop wrote no. 7, 12, 13, and 15. 8 is the bio of the director. Its reliable as a bio, but doesn't show notability. And the bio of list of staff members is not of encyclopedic interest. . DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @DGG:, the organisation is a peak body representing and advocating for the interests of community child care centre's in NSW (not exactly what I would refer to as a jurisdiction, being the largest state in Australia). The lack of WP:RS independent from the subject does to seem to be a bit of a problem. AlanS (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are quotes in references 2,4,5 and 6 from the co-operative which are advocacy of the sector. Googling them also turns up a fair amount of submissions from them to various government inquiries . Not very usable in terms of the article but the amount of them does demonstrate their activity in the sector as a peak-body NGO. AlanS (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, is it a "peak body" in the sense of being an advisory body, or a regulatory role, or a supervisory administrative role? For a State agency, we normally do accept as notable the major first-order departments of government; this is at most a sub-department, and for these our practice seems to vary. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a department of government or sub-department at all. It is a membership based not for profit non governmental organisation (members in this context would be non governmental child care centres) in which members would pay a yearly fee. The organisation then advocates for the sector as a whole and engages in representation for members where required. These sort of organsations tend to spend more of their time advocating (submissions to senate inquiries, engaging the media to try and shape public attitudes, etc.) than representing. In essence it is a pooling of resources across the community child care sector so that individual centres can get on with their business leaving the advocating for the interests of the sector to the peak body. Peak bodies tend to be spokespersons in the media any time changes in government policy will have an impact on their members. AlanS (talk) 03:17, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG as a nonprofit organization, has a large membership and plays a significant role in the area of influence. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does GNG indicate that non-profit organizations are all inherintly notably? Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. This isn't an all or nothing question. The sourcing added to this article indicates that it meets notability as far as being a large non-profit advocacy organization that is adequately notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright infringement of http://ccccnsw.org.au/about-us/our-programs-and-services Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So we need to fix the copyright issues. That's simple enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Follow up: Someone should run a checker on what's in there not, there are a lot of sources, I tweaked some of the initial sections, seems a good copyediting run should fix anything in too much trouble. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bowyer

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

Coatrack, WPINAD, NOTABILITY, more, see below This article may be the quintessential coatrack article. Is there a contest? Because this one really deserves to be nominated. Looking at the content,

The first paragraph is a dictionary entry, violating WP:WINAD. It is conceivable that a "bowyer" page could be encyclopedic rather than a pure dictionary entry, but even if someone took the time to write it, it wouldn't contain any of the information currently on the page, thus deletion of the page is still warranted.

The subsequent content breaks into several off-topic categories, containing no information about the profession in historical or current contexts.
- Kinds of bows made by bowyers, violating
- Materials used in bowmaking
- How to make a bow
- Videos of interesting things that happen when bows are made.

Lastly it is substantially a list of living, practicing bowyers who are (apparently) not in and of themselves worthy of an entry, violating WP:Notability

Be gentle, this is only the second time I've recommended deletion of a page Riventree (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems possible that a valid article might be created on this topic. I note that we already have an article for the Worshipful Company of Bowyers, the London guild founded in 1371 when the bowyers and the fletchers found that they couldn't get along. Books about the profession can be seen at GBooks, such as [34] and [35]. Also, a couple of the bowyers on the list do appear to have their own articles and it's possible that a few more of them are notable for their writings on the topic. I agree, however, that the current article is unfocused.--15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article being poorly written is not usually an argument for it to be deleted. Agree with • Gene93k that it should be re-written in a more focused way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed some dubious / promotional sources. The rest needs some work, but the core is there. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original delete-suggestor chiming in

Gene93k and Martinevans123: You're right. Badly written is NOT a good enough reason to delete a page. I wouldn't suggest that.
Stuartyeates: Thanks for the deletions. But your statement "The core is there" really stumps me.
Presuming the Keep folks are right and a non-dictionary page could be made about this profession, I assert that there is essentially no content on this page which applies (beyond some generalizations in the self bowyer section and the intro)

Section by section, my arguments:

Distinctions without difference: There are virtually NO non-wikipedia-cut-and-paste instances of the terms "self bowyer" "composite bowyer" or "glass bowyer", so it appears that all three sections were invented on the spot by people who were attempting to differentiate themselves from one another in volation of the self-promotion and notability guidelines.
Every bit of text in the "Self bowyer" section (except the time-required sentence) applies to all bowyers, so there's no need for the 'self bowyer' section itself.
Virtually all the text in the "Composite bowyer" section belongs in the "composite bow" page because it's about the bow, not the maker. It's not really about boywers at all, except to say they were skilled craftsman, something covered in the intro
The "fiberglass bows" section is mostly written from the No True Scotsman perspective: The remainder belongs in the "longbow" page as notes on construction. It's not really about boywers at all
The "how to make a bow" section is wholly in violation of Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO and It's not really about boywers at all
The "bowyers in the united states" section contains no encyclopedic data at all. It is a list of people who (according to the page) MAY have made their own bows, and how this MAY have affected another list of people, with uncited claims promoting a book at the end.
For what it's worth, I own the book being promoted. I like it. I've recommended it to friends. It's just not relevant to a page on bowyers. Bows or bowmaking: yes. Bowyers, no.

This section is probably about bowyers, but without any support for the cases mentioned. Why not list Thomas Jefferson? He made a lot of cool stuff, and probably made bows as well. This is not encyclopedic content.

I'm not unsympathetic to the subject - I think it's an interesting field. I just propose we delete this page. If everyone's right about there being room for an encyclopedic entry, someone else will come along and write it and we'll all be happy.

Riventree (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article (with the exception of a small listing of names of unclear notability near the bottom) is not really about Bowyers at all - most of the information is found in the Bows and Arrows article. One possibility would be to do a redirect as was have for Fletcher->Fletching but again delete seems the best option.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a good article, certainly, but the craft of bowyer is certainly a perfectly acceptable subject for an article. We don't delete articles on notable subjects because they're not well-written; we delete inappropriate content and then improve the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following are true:

Everyone (including those voting for deletion) knows that Wikipedia does not delete articles based on being badly written. Necrothesp, you might notice that we've already had this conversation twice above.
Everyone (including those voting for deletion) knows that virtually every noun or verb in the dictionary could be filled out to be an encyclopedic entry worthy of wikipedia.
Many (including myself) have direct interest in the subject of bows and are confident that someday someone will take the time to write such a page for the term "bowyer".

Deleting an entry:

Doesn't make it hard to create a good entry later
Improves the quality of wikipedia in general
Prevents the incorrect and offtopic information currently in the page from being broadcast

Please:

Read the actual arguments for deletion (wikipedia:coatrack, WP:Notability, WP:WINAD)
Examine the actual article to see if they are applicable
Vote

By the way, User:PRehse's idea of leaving the entry here as a redirect to bow and arrow sounds like a good middle ground - I'd vote for that as well.

Riventree (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (wikipedia:coatrack, WP:Notability, WP:WINAD) Riventree (talk) 17:07, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Waverly[edit]

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

A fictional character of a TV show in Australia with nothing else to say. I think a list of these characters be better. (Since I am unfamiliar with this subject, anyone that is feel free to do it) Wgolf (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I should add that looking over this, he seems to be the only character in that shows category that has basically no info about him. So yeah if someone can do a list of characters to put him there that be better. Wgolf (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in indepedent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 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 09:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor character in a TV show. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Koiral[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR pr WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Can't quite find notability about her. Maybe someday. Wgolf (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Me neither. Searched Indian news databases, world ones, didn't find sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk)`

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zu Shenatir[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CRIMINAL. Quote from that guideline:

For perpetrators

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. Example: John Hinckley Jr..
The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Example: Seung-Hui Cho.

Nomination continued Given the above guideline, I think the subject of the article appears to fall short of qualifying for inclusion. Safiel (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a serial killer, the subject makes a strong claim at criterion #2. As one of the earliest documented serial killers in history, he makes an even stronger claim. A quick Google search gets plenty of book hits. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This person and his crimes appear to have lasting notability 1,500 years later due to coverage in academic sources discussing serial killing, sex crimes, and crimes against homosexuals. The historical notability of his crimes pass WP:EVENT, but it makes more sense to title articles like these after the serial killer rather than the events. I would like to see a discussion about promoting the essay WP:MURDEROF to guideline status in that it does a much better job than WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM in cases like these. Location (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator I have read the essay above. I am reconsidering and may withdraw this, but I will let it go for another couple of days probably before doing so. Safiel (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As one of the first recorded serial killers, I think he meets the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the first recorded serial killers. notability reached.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 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 01:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Madryga[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources (i.e. the webpages of directly affiliated entities and organizations) with nary a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person notable only as a local television personality in a single media market. Single-market is not sufficient notability for a broadcaster by itself, and the primary sourcing fails to get him over WP:GNG — and the closest thing I can find to more substantive coverage on Google is an article titled "Meteorologist Mark Madryga says roads will be slippery this morning" and a photograph of him and his wife making pancakes, not attached to an actual article of any sort. Which spells delete, unfortunately. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no notability. I am not sure why there are continual attempts at articles for non-notable TV meteorologists even more than other video journalists. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 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 redirect to List of Premier Development League franchises. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okanagan Predators[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Fourth (or lower) division Canadian team. Clearly not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: amateur club, I failed to find independent reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Premier Development League franchises which could be a decent article of every team to have played in that league. Giant Snowman 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman - Seems better to redirect than delete imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Taylor (sportscaster)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage in sight, of a television personality in a single media market. The claim of notability does not pass ~~WP:NMEDIA~~ our inclusion rules for television personalities, and the quality of sourcing provided doesn't get him over WP:GNG — so it has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NMEDIA is not relevant here as it does not discuss individuals. WP:ENT or WP:ARTIST might be applicable, but I can't see how the subject would meet either. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm pretty sure it did once cover television and radio personalities, deprecating single-market local personalities who didn't have broader national name recognition — but you're right, it doesn't seem to do so anymore. Rationale revised accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of discussion in the secondary literature. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be significant coverage about him.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:57, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Ali (fashion designer)[edit]

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

Has been tagged for 2 years-with nothing indicating how this guy is notable. Wgolf (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes no claim to notability. GoldenRing (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm. He's interviewed by Hilary Alexander here. Highbeam pulls up an article from Fader magazine about his collaboration with the luggage company Globe Trotter where he is the headline focus. Another Highbeam article from Dec 2013 titled "Pakistan Fashion Is Looking Past 'Bombs and Burqas' Tag" has some good commentary on his work generally which notes that as a Hazara, he is the subject of a "targeted minority" - so we might need to be cautious here. I also found this cached on Google from the Express Tribune, an article dated 2011. So I am seeing some international coverage in the British and Pakistani press. There's a significant namecheck in a blog from the British Council here where an expert in the field specifically names him twice as someone significant. I see she is going to give a lecture (for the Contemporary South Asian Youth Cultures and Fashion Symposium) on the subject of "Dress and Fashion as Resistance and Self-Expression" in a couple weeks, with Mohsin Ali as one of her focuses. I'm inclined to think that the fact he's receiving such focused attention, particularly from experts and specialists in such a specific area, isn't to be sneezed at. It's not massive coverage, but IMO it is very good quality coverage which indicates that he is highly respected by people whose opinions count for something, rather than bloggers and promoters. Mabalu (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Leaning Keep - Okay, after taking a few days to dither back and forth over all this, I think it may just be borderline WP:TOOSOON. I am essentially undecided, but I feel that he's just tantalisingly, frustratingly, skirting the definite notability barrier. There ARE two very good sources - the Express Tribune one from 2011 (now with a proper URL) and the 2013 Pakistani fashion article.

I also looked for some more sources. Although this is on a blog, the blog itself is a high quality one promoted by the British Fashion Council and the blogger, João Paulo Nunes, has a good reputation for fashion and art based journalism. There is plenty of fashion show coverage in - generally quite lightweight, but regular ongoing coverage and not just in blogs. To my surprise, I even got recent hits on Google News - this and this on Google News - both making a point to mention that Ali had joined Sana Safinaz as a designer. One might be dismissed as a passing mention, two mentions in two separate good quality publications is certainly worth a raised eyebrow, although both are by the same journalist.

In addition, there's the academic backing - if the papers presented at the symposium are published afterwards, then that will firmly establish Mohsin Ali's notability beyond doubt. Mabalu (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Mabalu, could you explain to me why writing a paper or giving a lecture in a symposium, even if published, is a proof of notability? Normally for academics we don;t even include such publications in the article because they are too minor, and very rarely get true peer review. I don;t see why it proves anything for anyone else, either. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an academic/fashion historian, I'd certainly find it very significant if someone was singled out for discussion in such a presentation or lecture - particularly given the focus of the symposium in question. He attracts attention for his cultural background and political elements - and because he references these in his collections and work. The two sources above say as much. In this case, I think a published academic paper that in-depth describes, assesses, and discusses his work with focus on these aspects will give the last nudge required to cross the barrier. Mabalu (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a symposium is held on his work, it will certainly be significant. But this seems to be a single paper in a symposium; even that might well be significant, but from the reference you cite, it seems to be a paper about a number of people not just him. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 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 01:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayer (band)[edit]

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

Has been tagged since 2010. A band that seems to not be that notable from the looks of it. Wgolf (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Tending towards delete, but aware that coverage in English-language sources is likely to be slim. I'd like to see some input from someone more familiar with Indonesian culture here. GoldenRing (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Yeah that seems to be a huge problem with most of these obscure foreign language bands. Wgolf (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, we need an Indonesian expert here. But the band isn't notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional website. Bdboyc (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sadly, even a search for reliable Indonesian coverage comes up empty. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. The music is good but it's not ready for an Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia is not a promotion website. Bdboyc (talk) 18:59, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Patrick O'Brien[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessperson, relying almost entirely on primary sources and straddling the line between encyclopedia article and outright advertising (note, frex, the sheer number of times the ® symbol shows up in the "career" section.) I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and tone can be significantly revised, but nothing here makes him so inherently notable that he'd be allowed to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:58, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of RS. However, you're supposed to check whether adequate sources are available before you nominate an article, not nominate on the basis that, "I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and tone can be significantly revised." You're an admin; you're supposed to know this. GoldenRing (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes sources can be provided which are outside the range of what can actually be Googled (e.g. newspaper or specialist media databases that I don't have access to), so don't assume or allege that I somehow failed to do sufficient WP:BEFORE of my own just because I left the possibility open that some acceptable sources might still exist despite my own lack of success at turning anything up with the resources I have available to me. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; my apologies. GoldenRing (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - really very marginal in sourcing and notability. I removed some trivial personal information per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association career double-double leaders[edit]

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

What is the point of having this list when it is already succinctly covered within Double (basketball)? This list only provides statistics back to 1985-86, so it does not seem very encyclopedic. Hoops gza (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extensive list. The list on Double (basketball) is not near as extensive. Statistics before the 1985-86 NBA season could always be added if reliable sources exist. I know that only including the stats until the 1985-86 season makes the article less encyclopedia, but the NBA did implement new statistics over time. The National Basketball Association did not record steals and blocks statistics until the 1973-74 season. The NBA did not add the three-point line until the 1979-80 season.^[1] Implementing new statistics over time has increased possibilities of achieving a double-double, so including double-doubles until a season such as 1985-86 would be somewhat expected. Robert4565 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding sources that this grouping meets WP:LISTN, namely "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This listing isn't even generally available per se from a stats site; it is the result of a user-emtered query from a stats site, making WP:OR relevant as well.—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 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 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bagumba's rationale immediately above. List creator has amalgamated multiple topics into a single subject for which significant coverage does not exist in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the list notability guidelines of WP:NLIST. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a listing page for every single statistic, why not this one? Timmyshin (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba. Why not this one? Firstly, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and secondly because WP:LISTN. On a statistical note, I'm sceptical of statistics where most of the variation seems to be explained by the year the player stopped playing. GoldenRing (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only 1 source which is not enough for GNG. Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:43, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firedrive[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Article's notability was pegged to supposed Forbes designation as top cloud storage site, added by since-blocked spammer. But the "article" in question was by a blogger not employed by Forbes and explicitly not stating Forbes' opinion. No other citations provided meet the criteria of the notability guideline, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only interesting thing here was the DCMA legal issues. I looked to see if there was an article where this paragraph could be moved, but didn't find anything. There is a small list of key DCMA take-down legal cases on the DCMA article, but this wouldn't merit that. I was surprised that there was no section on legal issues on the article for Streaming_media since this might fit there. A full list of DCMA take-down claims would, of course, be overwhelming. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 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 00:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried the usual searches + Highbeam and found nothing that hasn't been discovered in the discussion previous. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 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 redirect to Winner (band). j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jin-woo (singer)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, he has no notability outside of Winner Asdklf; (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move per Asdklf's argument. Either delete it or move as a subpage under the creator. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 19:48, 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 00:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Now I can see this guy getting a page someday, but not now. Wgolf (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winner (band) for lack of sources to singer himself specifically and hence WP:TOOSOON (only one source now that addresses the band). Leave access to current version open for when he leaves the too-soon zone. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutya Johanna Datul[edit]

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

I am not sure about this one. While all the other Miss Supranational winners do not show sufficient notability, this one has rather more sources and info on her - although they are mostly in relation to the deleted article Miss Supranational. The pageant she did win, in the Philippines, is also a decider for other definitely notable pageants, so she might be notable by that standard (although it SEEMS that she only won the Miss Supranational bit of said pageant.) This one is definitely worth discussing. Mabalu (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Hmm, would significant or substantial mainstream coverage on the subject be good enough to warrant inclusion? If not, maybe a redirect to the 2013 pageant would suffice. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Miss Supranational has been deleted at AFD... so all its roots are now without a tree. Mabalu (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 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 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There seems to be some consensus that Miss Supranational is not notable (at least for now). However, Datul did receive a fairly decent amount of coverage from local sources (which ironically could prove notability for the pageant). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly local coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, if non-local sources would be required for establishing notability, about half to 3/4 of Wikipedia's articles could go down the drain. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would point out that all the other Miss Supranational winners are now gone through AFD - Mutya is the sole woman standing. Her notability is now down to her having won one of the four titles in Binibining Pilipinas but you'll note from that page that not all the title holders have articles of their own, although they are listed and entabulated on that page very tidily. I think Mutya's success in this pageant PROBABLY weakly justifies this article but that's why I raised it for discussion here. Mabalu (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage on Philippine newspapers and magazines here suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 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. Clearly no consensus to delete the article. Seems like there is a growing consensus to redirect, and this close is certainly without prejudice against such action.Mojo Hand (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DWAS-TV (GMA)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, lack of independent secondary sources Cult of Green (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They also still require actual sourcing of some kind, and can still be redirected to a larger related article (e.g. the network, a list of media in their location, etc.) if such sourcing cannot be located. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 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 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if some actual sourcing can be located; redirect to GMA Network if it can't. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain - TV channels are kept per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seeing as the article is not sourced, I would support a redirect to GMA Network. If there is support for this I will with draw the nomination and do the redirect. Cult of Green (talk) 04:36, 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 delete. Deleting as copyvio, there was not a final consensus on notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Matthei[edit]

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

Long unreferenced and clearly a memorial, fails WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 26 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 01:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete: in my opinion he isn't notable, but the article as it stands is a substantial copyvio/close paraphrase of [36]. BethNaught (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio, without prejudice against recreation. With the possible exception of the first paragraph, the article is a very slightly abridged copy of the obituary already referenced by User:BethNaught. Having said that, GBooks gives a lot of hits - many of these are either in passing or personal memoirs. But he obviously made such an impression on people that the chance that somewhere among them (or elsewhere) there are enough reliable sources to write a replacement article is quite high, PWilkinson (talk) 11:44, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impaqt[edit]

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

Promo of a nonnotable company based exclusively from marketing sources -No.Altenmann >t 16:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 26 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 02:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Walentinee (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merkle Inc.. Not notable enough for its own article, but enough independent reliable source coverage (e.g. Post Gazette source) to support a redirect. Jinkinson talk to me 03:01, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Eson Johnson Ecoma[edit]

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

Sources that are cited only mention the subject, no significant coverage. General Google search returns no hits except facebook [37]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 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 02:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am quite unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies concerning lawyers but I will try to disclose my findings. Firstly, C.J Ecoma obviously fails WP:GNG. I have no doubt that he was indeed the Chief Justice of Cross-River State but the issue here is, do we really have enough to establish that claim? and even if we do, is that enough for a standalone article despite failing GNG? I was able to get 4 webpages (2 of which were cached) that mentions him as a former CJ in less than a sentence. I am unsure if just mentioning his surname as a former CJ is enough for a standalone article. Do we really have enough info for this article to remain? 1 and 2 Darreg (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the verifiability problem could be solved, Ecoma would pass WP:POLITICIAN. However, I'm not finding reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 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 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Developing Human Rights Jurisprudence, Commonwealth Secretariat, 1996, vol 7, pp 226-227 refers to "Kano State Chief Judge S.E.J. Ecoma".
1990 Judicial Lectures, Supreme Court of Nigeria, 1991, p 320 refers to "Cross River State ... Hon. Justice S. E. J. Ecoma - Chief Judge".
Fawahinmi, Courts' System in Nigeria, Lagos, 1992, refers to "Cross River State ... High Court Judges ... Honourable Justice Samuel E. J. Ecoma - Chief Judge".
West Africa, 1990, Issues 3788-3800, p 597 says that "Samuel Esong Johnson Ecoma" is the chief judge of a state: [38].
Ogundere, The Nigerian Judge and his Court, University Press, 1994, p 74 refers to "States Capital Chief Judge ... Cross River Calabar S E J Ecoma". (This looks like a table).

James500 (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical dictionary article on Justice Samuel Eson Johnson Ecoma in Africa's Who's Who, 1991, p 560; and on Samuel Esen Johnson Ecoma in Who's Who in Nigeria, 1971, p 84: [39][40]. James500 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the books cited in the article Bench and Bar in Nigeria isn't searchable in GBooks. Someone who has read that book should tell us exactly what it does or doesn't contain. James500 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Africa's Who's Who says that Samuel Eson Johnson Ecoma was appointed a judge of the High Court at Calabar in March 1974. James500 (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me that these sources do not satisfy both GNG and POLITICIAN. James500 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see what, if anything, is wrong with the sources in GBooks. James500 (talk) 03:01, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Budget[edit]

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

Article is unsourced, probably not notable. It also fails WP:IINFO as it contains "Excessive listings of statistics without sufficient explanatory text to put statistics in their proper context". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 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 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above, the article *clearly* fails the test listed at WP:IINFO as an 'Excessive listing of statistics'. As the article is almost entirety a collection of stats, with little other encyclopedic content, I concur that the article should be deleted. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:14, 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 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Valiant Patriot and Gene93k. I searched international news (found nothing) and Indian papers here and did not come up with much. Generally a topic like this doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but rather in a website for the Indian state of Odisha, in the sense that the topic is not encyclopedic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 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 22:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Business and Technology Centre[edit]

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

no 3rd party sources for importance; everything is a press release. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 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 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Certainly could do with better refs, but don't see that being a good enough ereason to delete. Warren (talk) 10:05, 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 00:46, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Beltyukov[edit]

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

Despite the long list of references in the article, none of the links work for me. I had a search in factiva for some of the titles with no luck and then tried the name instead. The only reliable sources I could find relate to charges of embezzlement e.g. [41] made in 2013 that lead to his resignation - see page 4 of [42]. The subject doesn't appear to be notable and the content in the article is entirely unverifiable to my knowledge. The user who created it is almost certainly a paid editor e.g. also working on Josh Swade and are both related to this editor group. SmartSE (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 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 03:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources. The first three reference links are dead and one reference has no links. 5 quotes the subject once. 6 & 7 are dead. 8 just quotes Alexei Beltyukov as a McKinsey & Co consultant. 9 is just a McKinsey report that does not discuss the subject. 10 is dead. 11 is in Russian and requires a subscription. 12-15 are dead. 16 references the subject once allegedly as helping to create a scholarship.--Rpclod (talk) 03:48, 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 00:41, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to a combination of 1) a lack of adequate input and 2) additional factors: one of the listed sources in the first !vote is a short business listing from Bloomberg (which doesn't serve to establish notability), and the second !vote states that the sources are "...probably enough to show notability", rather than those definitely qualifying notability. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Tyre[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Sources cited are generally of low quality with the only high quality one being this short obituary. I have searched for better sources but have not been able to find anything suitable. I found that the article was listed in a blocked editor's Wikipedia Portfolio of 'completed projects' and therefore and it therefore demands close scrutiny. SmartSE (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the other sources in the article are WP:RS. This passes WP:GNG. I think this, this and this are among the additional RSs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 26 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 03:43, 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 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A long-lived tire brand; the cited sources are not great but probably enough to show notability. The article could benefit from some judicious editing to reduce the promotional tone. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 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] "iN Music We Trust Article". In Music We Trust.

[2] "Twitter". Twitter.

[3] "Facebook Fan Page". Facebook.

[4] [1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]